A treatment method for Class II Division 1 patients with extraction of permanent maxillary first molars

Throughout the years, various treatment modalities have been presented for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. The goal of this paper is to present a treatment approach that involves the extraction of the maxillary first molars followed by use of fixed appliances with low-friction brackets. This treatment approach has proven to be an efficient treatment modality for Class II Division 1 malocclusions, especially with noncompliant patients.

Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions

INTRODUCTION Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions. METHODS The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.62 years) treated between 1998 and 2004 by 1 orthodontist with full Begg appliances were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were white patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, sagittal overjet of ≥4 mm, treatment plan including extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars, no missing teeth, and no agenesis. Maxillary posterior tooth inclination and lower maxillary sinus area in relation to the palatal plane were measured on lateral cephalograms at 3 time points: at the start and end of treatment, and on average 2.5 years posttreatment. Data were analyzed for the second premolar and second molar inclinations by using mixed linear models. RESULTS The analysis showed that the second molar inclination angle decreased by 7° after orthodontic treatment, compared with pretreatment values, and by 11.5° at the latest follow-up, compared with pretreatment. There was evidence that maxillary sinus volume was negatively correlated with second molar inclination angle; the greater the volume, the smaller the inclination angle. For premolars, inclination increased by 15.4° after orthodontic treatment compared with pretreatment, and by 8.1° at the latest follow-up compared with baseline. The volume of the maxillary sinus was not associated with premolar inclination. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence of an association between maxillary second molar inclination and surface area of the lower sinus in patients treated with maxillary first molar extractions. Clinicians who undertake such an extraction scheme in Class II patients should be aware of this potential association and consider appropriate biomechanics to control root uprighting.

Interaction between cell division proteins FtsE and FtsZ.

FtsE and FtsX, which are widely conserved homologs of ABC transporters and interact with each other, have important but unknown functions in bacterial cell division. Coimmunoprecipitation of Escherichia coli cell extracts revealed that a functional FLAG-tagged version of FtsE, the putative ATP-binding component, interacts with FtsZ, the bacterial tubulin homolog required to assemble the cytokinetic Z ring and recruit the components of the divisome. This interaction is independent of FtsX, the predicted membrane component of the ABC transporter, which has been shown previously to interact with FtsE. The interaction also occurred independently of FtsA or ZipA, two other E. coli cell division proteins that interact with FtsZ. In addition, FtsZ copurified with FLAG-FtsE. Surprisingly, the conserved C-terminal tail of FtsZ, which interacts with other cell division proteins, such as FtsA and ZipA, was dispensable for interaction with FtsE. In support of a direct interaction with FtsZ, targeting of a green fluorescent protein (GFP)-FtsE fusion to Z rings required FtsZ, but not FtsA. Although GFP-FtsE failed to target Z rings in the absence of ZipA, its localization was restored in the presence of the ftsA* bypass suppressor, indicating that the requirement for ZipA is indirect. Coexpression of FLAG-FtsE and FtsX under certain conditions resulted in efficient formation of minicells, also consistent with an FtsE-FtsZ interaction and with the idea that FtsE and FtsX regulate the activity of the divisome.