Class III subdivision malocclusion corrected with asymmetric intermaxillary elastics

Correcting a Class III subdivision malocclusion is usually a challenge for an orthodontist, especially if the patient`s profile does not allow for any extractions. One treatment option is to use asymmetric intermaxillary elastics to correct the unilateral anteroposterior discrepancy. However, the success of this method depends on the individual response of each patient and his or her compliance in using the elastics. The objectives of this article were to present a successful treatment of a Class III subdivision patient with this approach and to illustrate and discuss the dentoskeletal changes that contributed to the correction. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:221-30)

A modified orthodontic protocol for advanced periodontal disease in Class II division 1 malocclusion

An interdisciplinary approach is often the best option for achieving a predictable outcome for an adult patient with complex clinical problems. This case report demonstrates the combined periodontal/orthodontic treatment for a 49-year-old woman presenting with a Class II Division 1 malocclusion with moderate maxillary anterior crowding, a 9-mm overjet, and moderate to severe bone loss as the main characteristics of the periodontal disease. The orthodontic treatment included 2 maxillary first premolar extractions through forced extrusion. Active orthodontic treatment was completed in 30 months. The treatment outcomes, including the periodontal condition, were stable 17 months after active orthodontic treatment. The advantages of this interdisciplinary approach are discussed. Periodontally compromised orthodontic patients can be satisfactorily treated, achieving most of the conventional orthodontic goals, if a combined orthodontic/periodontic approach is used. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139:S133-44)

Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances

The present study aimed to evaluate the cephalometric changes in Class II patients treated exclusively with cervical headgear (CHG) in the maxillary arch and fixed appliances in the mandibular arch as compared with a control group. The sample comprised 82 lateral cephalograms obtained pre- (T1) and post- (T2) treatment/observation of 41 subjects, divided into two groups: group 1-25 Class II division 1 patients (20 females and five males), with a mean pre-treatment age of 10.4 years, treated for a mean period of 2.5 years and group 2-16 Class II untreated subjects (12 females and four males), with a mean initial age of 9.9 years, followed for a mean period of 2.2 years. Treatment changes between the groups were compared by means of t-tests. The results showed restriction of maxillary forward displacement and also a restriction in maxillary length growth, improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship, restriction of mandibular incisor vertical development, reduction in overjet and overbite, and improvement in molar relationship. It was concluded that this treatment protocol corrected the Class II malocclusion characteristics primarily through maxillary forward growth restriction.