Stability of anterior open-bite treatment with occlusal adjustment

Introduction: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term stability of anterior open-bite treatment with occlusal adjustment and the dentinal sensitivity caused by this procedure in the long term. Methods: The sample comprised 17 open-bite patients who experienced relapse of the negative vertical overbite after orthodontic treatment and were retreated with occlusal adjustment. The cephalometric changes were evaluated on lateral cephalograms obtained before and after the occlusal adjustment and in the long term (mean, 3.4 years after occlusal adjustment). Dentinal sensitivity was also evaluated before the occlusal adjustment, and 1.35 months, 4.61 months, and 3.4 years later. The cephalometric statuses between the 3 evaluations were compared with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests. The percentages of clinically significant relapse were calculated. To compare dentinal sensitivity at the several stages, nonparametric Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were performed. Results: Statistically significant relapse of anterior open bite occurred in 33.3% of the patients. Those who had the procedure before 21 years of age were most likely to experience relapse. Dentinal sensitivity remained within the normal range in the long term. Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant relapse of anterior open bite, clinically significant stability was found in 66.7% of the patients. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138:14.e1-14.e7)

Class I malocclusion treatment: Influence of a missing mandibular incisor on anterior guidance

This case report describes the orthodontic treatment of a patient with a deep-overbite Angle Class I malocclusion, agenesis of a mandibular central incisor, and 2 supernumerary teeth, which caused impaction of the mandibular first premolars. The 15-year-old patient also had a convex profile, maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion, and deficiency of space for the correct alignment of teeth. Therefore, treatment consisted of fixed appliance therapy, cervical headgear, extraction of the supernumeraries and the mandibular and maxillary first premolars, and mesiodistal reduction of the maxillary incisors to solve the arch perimeter discrepancy as much as possible with interproximal stripping. This method of treatment significantly improved the patient`s facial and dental esthetics and provided a good functional occlusion, despite the absence of a mandibular incisor, which generally impairs achieving adequate incisal guidance. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:109-17)

Treatment stability in patients with Class II malocclusion treated with 2 maxillary premolar extractions or without extractions

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal stability of Class II malocclusion treatment with and without extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Methods: A sample of 59 records from patients with complete Class II malocclusion was used. This sample was divided into 2 groups with the following characteristics: group 1, comprising 29 patients treated without extractions, and group 2, comprising 30 patients treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Dental cast measurements were obtained before and after treatment and at a minimum of 2.4 years after treatment. The pretreatment, posttreatment, and postretention occlusal statuses were evaluated with the peer assesment rating index. The occlusal indexes at the postretention stage and the posttreatment changes and percentages of posttreatment changes were compared with t tests. Results: The nonextraction and the 2 maxillary premolar extraction treatment protocols of complete Class II malocclusions had no statistically significant differences in occlusal stability. Conclusions: Finishing Class II malocclusion treatment with the molars in a Class II relationship has similar occlusal stability as finishing with the molars in a Class I relationship. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:16-22)

Orthodontic-surgical treatment of Class III malocclusion with extraction of an impacted canine and multi-segmented maxillary surgery

Establishment of a treatment plan is based on efficacy and easy application by the clinician, and acceptance by the patient. Treatment of adult patients with Class III malocclusion might require orthognathic surgery, especially when the deformity is severe, with a significant impact on facial esthetics. Impacted teeth can remarkably influence treatment planning, which should be precise and concise to allow a reasonably short treatment time with low biologic cost. We report here the case of a 20-year-old man who had a skeletal Class III malocclusion and impaction of the maxillary right canine, leading to remarkable deviation of the maxillary midline; this was his chief complaint. Because of the severely deviated position of the impacted canine, treatment included extraction of the maxillary right canine and left first premolar for midline correction followed by leveling, alignment, correction of compensatory tooth positioning, and orthognathic surgery to correct the skeletal Class III malocclusion because of the severe maxillary deficiency. This treatment approach allowed correction of the maxillary dental midline discrepancy to the midsagittal plane and establishment of good occlusion and optimal esthetics. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:840-9)

Open-bite orthodontic-surgical treatment in the Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome: a case report

We describe the orthodontic treatment of a patient with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber syndrome (KTWS) who received orthodontic treatment that included rapid palatal expansion and orthognathic surgery. There is no report in the literature with this orthodontic treatment protocol, that was considered successful. The pros and cons of this approach as well as the risks involved are discussed. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109: e17-e25)

Lateral open bite: Treatment and stability

Because of their multifactorial etiologies, dental and skeletal open bites are among the most difficult malocclusions to treat to a successful and stable result. Etiologic factors include vertical maxillary excess, skeletal pattern, abnormalities in dental eruption, and tongue-thrust problems. The purpose of this article was to report the treatment of an adult patient with a lateral open bite and a unilateral posterior crossbite. The treatment involved nonextraction therapy, including intermaxillary elastics, to obtain dentoalveolar extrusion in the region of the lateral open bite. The treatment results were successful and remained stable 2 years later. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:701-11)

Influence of rapid palatal expansion on maxillary incisor alignment stability

Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term stability of maxillary incisor alignment in patients treated with and without rapid maxillary expansion (RME). Methods: The sample comprised 48 subjects with Class I and Class II malocclusions, treated without extractions with fixed edgewise appliances, divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol: group 1 comprised 25 patients (15 girls, 10 boys) at a mean initial age of 13.53 years (SD, 1.63), who had RME during orthodontic treatment. Group 2 comprised 23 patients (13 girls, 10 boys) at a mean initial age of 13.36 years (SD, 1.81 years), treated with fixed appliances without RME. Maxillary dental cast measurements were obtained at the pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term posttreatment stages. Variables assessed were the irregularity index and maxillary arch dimensions. Intergroup comparisons were made with independent t tests. Results: Greater transverse increases were found during treatment in the group treated with RME. However, during the long-term posttreatment period, no significant difference was observed in the amount of incisor crowding relapse between the groups. Conclusions: RME did not influence long-term maxillary anterior alignment stability. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 164. e1-164.e6)

Strategic maxillary second-molar extraction in Class II malocclusion

Maxillary second-molar extraction in Class II malocclusion is a controversial issue in orthodontics. This treatment protocol is rigorous and not routine. In this case report, we present the orthodontic treatment of a patient with a Class II malocclusion, maxillary crowding, and no mandibular first molars, treated with extraction of the maxillary second molars. The mechanotherapy and indications of maxillary second- molar extraction are discussed. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:878-86)

Predictable drill-free screw positioning with a graduated 3-dimensional radiographic-surgical guide: A preliminary report

Introduction: Mini-implants are placed in restricted sites, requiring an accurate surgical technique. However, no systematic study has quantified technique accuracy to reliably predict the surgical risks. Therefore, a graduated 3-dimensional radiographic-surgical guide (G-RSG) was proposed, and its inaccuracy and risk index (RI) were estimated. Methods: The sample consisted of 6 subjects (4 male, 2 female), who used mini-implant anchorage. Ten drill-free screws (DFS) were placed by using the G-RSG. The central point of the mesiodistal septum width (SW) was the selected implant site on the presurgical radiograph. The distances between DFS and the adjacent teeth (5-DFS and 6-DFS) were measured to evaluate screw centralization and inaccuracy degree (ID). These distances were statistically compared by independent t tests, and inaccuracy was determined by the expression ID = (5-DFS-6-DFS)/2, which represents deviation of the mini-implant`s final position regarding the central point initially selected. Then SW, ID, and screw diameter (SO) were combined to estimate the surgical risk with RI expressed by RI = SO/SW-ID. Results: The 5-DFS and 6-DFS distances were not significantly different. The ID of the G-RSG was 0.17 mm. The low ID ensured a safe RI (<1) in spite of the restricted SW. Conclusions: The G-RSG accuracy allowed fine prediction of the final DFS position in the inter-radicular septum, with a low RI, which is a helpful tool to estimate surgical risks. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 722-35)

Nonextraction treatment of a skeletal Class III malocclusion

This case report describes the nonsurgical, nonextraction therapy of a 16-year-old boy with a skeletal Class III malocclusion, a prognathic mandible, and a retrusive maxilla. He was initially classified as needing orthognathic surgery, but he and his parents wanted to avoid that. The Class III malocclusion was corrected with a rapid palatal expander and a maxillary protraction mask followed by nonextraction orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances, combined with short Class III and vertical elastics in the anterior area. The height of the maxillary alveolar process and the vertical face height were slightly increased with treatment. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved, and the facial profile improved substantially. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 736-45)

Long-term stability of Class II malocclusion treated with 2-and 4-premolar extraction protocols

Introduction: The objective of this study was to cephalometrically compare the stability of complete Class II malocclusion treatment with 2 or 4 premolar extractions after a mean period of 9.35 years. Methods: A sample of 57 records from patients with complete Class II malocclusion was selected and divided into 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of 30 patients with an initial mean age of 12.87 years treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Group 2 consisted of 27 patients with an initial mean age of 13.72 years treated with extraction of 4 premolars. T tests were used to compare the groups` initial cephalometric characteristics and posttreatment changes. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the correlation between treatment and posttreatment dental-relationship changes. Results: During the posttreatment period, both groups had similar behavior, except that group 1 had a statistically greater maxillary forward displacement and a greater increase in the apical-base relationship than group 2. On the other hand, group 2 had a statistically greater molar-relationship relapse toward Class II. There were significant positive correlations between the amounts of treatment and posttreatment dentoalveolar-relationship changes. Conclusions: Treatment of complete Class II malocclusions with 2 maxillary premolar extractions or 4 premolar extractions had similar long-term posttreatment stability. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:154.e1-154.e10)

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.

Treatment of a Class II subdivision malocclusion with multiple congenitally missing teeth

This case report describes the treatment of a patient with a Class II Division 1 subdivision right malocclusion with 8 congenitally missing teeth, incompetent lips, and incisor protrusion. The treatment plan included extractions and space closure with retraction of the anterior teeth; symmetric mechanics were used in the mandibular arch and asymmetric mechanics in the maxillary arch. Because of the mechanics used, some midline deviations were expected. Knowledge of diagnosis and treatment planning of asymmetric malocclusions and dental esthetics are essential for success when correcting asymmetic problems, but, even so, small clinical compromises should be expected. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 663-70)

Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances

Introduction: In this study, we compared the dentoalveolar changes of Class II patients treated with Jones jig and pendulum appliances. Methods: The experimental group comprised 40 Class II malocclusion subjects, divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 20 patients (11 boys, 9 girls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.17 years, treated with the Jones jig appliance for 0.91 years; group 2 comprised 20 patients (8 boys, 12 grls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.98 years, treated with the pendulum appliance for 1.18 years. Only active treatment time of molar distalization was evaluated in the predistalization and postdistalization lateral cephalograms. Molar, second premolar, and incisor angular and linear variables were obtained. The intergroup treatment changes in these variables were compared with independent t tests. Results: The maxillary second premolars showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group, indicating more anchorage loss during molar distalization with this appliance. The amounts and the monthly rates of molar distalization were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The Jones jig group showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion of the maxillary second premolars. The mean amounts and the monthly rates of first molar distalization were similar in both groups. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:336-42)