Comparative efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and edgewire appliances

The objective of this study was to compare, on study models and initial cephalograms, the efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance, and with two maxillary premolar extraction protocol. The sample consisted of 48 treated Class II malocclusion patients: group 1 comprised 22 patients (7 males, 15 females) treated with the pendulum appliance, with an initial mean age of 14.44 years and group 2, 26 patients (14 males, 12 females) treated with two maxillary premolar extractions at an initial mean age of 13.66 years. To compare the efficiency of each treatment protocol, the occlusal outcomes were evaluated on dental casts using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and the treatment time (TT) of each group was calculated on clinical charts. The degree of treatment efficiency was calculated as the ratio between the percentage of occlusal improvement, evaluated through the PAR index, and TT. Statistical analysis was undertaken by means of t-tests. The findings demonstrated that the two maxillary premolar extraction protocol provided the occlusal outcomes in a shorter time (group 1: 45.7 months, group 2: 23.01 months) and, therefore, demonstrated greater treatment efficiency than the pendulum appliance.

Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1-and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time. Methods: Class II Division 1 subjects ( n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. Conclusions: Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.