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.

Long-term stability of surgical-orthodontic open-bite correction

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term stability of open-bite surgical-orthodontic correction. Methods: Thirty-nine patients at an initial mean age of 20.83 years were evaluated cephalometrically at pretreatment (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), and at the last recall (T3), with a mean follow-up time of 8.22 years. The surgical protocol included single-jaw or double-jaw surgery. Because the patients had different anteroposterior malocclusions, the sample was divided into a Class I and Class II (I-II) subgroup (3 Class I, 20 Class II malocclusion patients) and a Class III subgroup (16 patients). The dentoskeletal characteristics of the total sample and the subgroups were compared at T1, T2, and T3 with dependent analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Overbite relapse in the posttreatment period was statistically significant in the whole sample and the Class I-II subgroup. Fourteen patients of the whole sample (35.9%) had clinically significant open-bite relapse (negative overbite). Conclusions: There was a statistically significant open-bite relapse in the overall sample and in the Class I-II subgroup. The clinically significant values of long-term open-bite correction stability were 64.11%, 47.82%, and 87.50% in the overall sample, the Class I-II subgroup, and the Class III subgroup, respectively. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:254.e1-254.e10)