984 resultados para Angle class II malocclusion
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: The study of the Divine Proportion (Φ = 1.618) began with the Greeks, having as main researchers the mathematician Pythagoras and the sculptor Phidias. In Dentistry, Ricketts (1981-82) was an early to study this issue. OBJECTIVE: This study proposed to evaluate how some cephalometric measures are presented in relation to the Divine Proportion, with the total of 52 proportions, formed by 28 cephalometric landmarks. METHODS: Lateral cephalograms of 40 Class II adults patients aging from 17 to 45 years (13 male and 27 female) were evaluated. The linear distances between the landmarks were measured using Radiocef Studio software. RESULTS: After statistical analysis, the data shown an average of 65,48% in the Divine Proportion, 17,5% in the relation Ans-Op/V1S-DM16 and 97,5% in the relations Na-Me/Na-PoNa e Na-PoNa/Na-Gn. CONCLUSION: Among all cephalometric measurements investigated, the lower facial third and the dental arches showed the smallest percentages of Divine Proportion.
Resumo:
Abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurence of compensation in mesiodistal axial inclinations of canines in skeletal malocclusions patients. The sample consisted of 25 Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion (group 1) and 19 Angle Class III malocclusion patients (group 2). After measurement of dental angulations through a method that associates plaster model photography and AutoCad software, comparisons between the groups were performed by T-test for independent samples. Results showed that there was no statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between groups, when maxillary canine angulations were compared. Regarding the mandibular canines, there was a statistically significant difference in dental angulation, expressed by 3.2° for group 1 and 0.15° for group 2. An upright position tendency for mandibular canines was observed in the Angle Class III sample. This configures a pattern of compensatory coronary positioning, since the angulation of these teeth makes them occupy less space in the dental arch and consequently mandibular incisors can be in a more retracted position in the sagittal plane.
Resumo:
Objective: To systematically review the scientific evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of high-pull headgear in growing Class II subjects. Methods: A literature survey was performed by electronic database search. The survey covered the period from January 1966 to December 2008 and used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Articles were initially selected based on their titles and abstracts; the full articles were then retrieved. The inclusion criteria included growing subjects between 8 to 15 years of age, Class II malocclusion treatment with high-pull headgear, and a control group with Class II malocclusion. References from selected articles were hand-searched for additional publications. Selected studies were evaluated methodologically. Results: Four articles were selected; none were randomized controlled trials. All of the articles clearly formulated their objectives and used appropriate measures. The studies showed that high-pull headgear treatment improves skeletal and dental relationship, distal displacement of the maxilla, vertical eruption control and upper molars distalization. One of the studies showed a slight clockwise rotation of the palatal plane; the others showed no significant treatment effect. The mandible was not affected by the treatment. Conclusion: While there is still a lack of strong evidence demonstrating the effects of high-pull headgear with a splint, other studies indicate that the AP relations improve due to distalization of the maxilla and upper molars, with little or no treatment effects in the mandible. Greater attention to the design should be given to improve the quality of such trials. © 2013 Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: It is well known that the efficacy and the efficiency of a Class II malocclusion treatment are aspects closely related to the severity of the dental anteroposterior discrepancy. Even though, sample selection based on cephalometric variables without considering the severity of the occlusal anteroposterior discrepancy is still common in current papers. In some of them, when occlusal parameters are chosen, the severity is often neglected. The purpose of this study is to verify the importance given to the classification of Class II malocclusion, based on the criteria used for sample selection in a great number of papers published in the orthodontic journal with the highest impact factor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed database for full-text research papers referencing Class II malocclusion in the history of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO). RESULTS: A total of 359 papers were retrieved, among which only 72 (20.06%) papers described the occlusal severity of the Class II malocclusion sample. In the other 287 (79.94%) papers that did not specify the anteroposterior discrepancy severity, description was considered to be crucial in 159 (55.40%) of them. CONCLUSIONS: Omission in describing the occlusal severity demands a cautious interpretation of 44.29% of the papers retrieved in this study.
Resumo:
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)
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the anterior-posterior positioning of the upper and lower first molars, and the degree of rotation of the upper first molars in individuals with Class II, division 1, malocclusion. METHODS: Asymmetry I, an accurate device, was used to assess sixty sets of dental casts from 27 females and 33 males, aged between 12 and 21 years old, with bilateral Class II, division 1. The sagittal position of the molars was determined by positioning the casts onto the device, considering the midpalatal suture as a symmetry reference, and then measuring the distance between the mesial marginal ridge of the most distal molar and the mesial marginal ridge of its counterpart. With regard to the degree of rotation of the upper molar, the distance between landmarks on the mesial marginal ridge was measured. Chi-square test with a 5% significance level was used to verify the variation in molars position. Student's t test at 5% significance was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A great number of lower molars mesially positioned was registered, and the comparison between the right and left sides also demonstrated a higher number of mesially positioned molars on the right side of both arches. The average rotation of the molars was found to be 0.76 mm and 0.93 mm for the right and left sides, respectively. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was detected between the mean values of molars mesialization regardless of the side and arch. Molars rotation, measured in millimeters, represented ¼ of Class II.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of the skeletal maturation in the mandibular and dentoalveolar growth and development during the Class II, division 1, malocclusion correction with Balters bionator. METHODS: Three groups of children with Class II, division 1, malocclusion were evaluated. Two of them were treated for one year with the bionator of Balters appliance in different skeletal ages (Group 1: 6 children, 7 to 8 years old and Group 2: 10 children, 9 to 10 years old) and the other one was followed without treatment (Control Group: 7 children, 8 to 9 years old). Lateral 45 degree cephalometric radiographs were used for the evaluation of the mandibular growth and dentoalveolar development. Tantalum metallic implants were used as fixed and stable references for radiograph superimposition and data acquisition. Student's t test was used in the statistical analysis of the displacement of the points in the condyle, ramus, mandibular base and dental points. Analysis of variance one-fixed criteria was used to evaluate group differences (95% of level of significance). RESULTS: The intragroup evaluation showed that all groups present significant skeletal growth for all points analyzed (1.2 to 3.7 mm), but in an intergroup comparison, the increment of the mandibular growth in the condyle, ramus and mandibular base were not statically different. For the dentoalveolar modifications, the less mature children showed greater labial inclination of the lower incisors (1.86 mm) and the most mature children showed greater first permanent molar extrusion (4.8 mm).
Resumo:
Objective: To analyze the long-term skeletal and dentoalveolar effects and to evaluate treatment timing of Class II treatment with functional appliances followed by fixed appliances.Materials and Methods: A group of 40 patients (22 females and 18 males) with Class II malocclusion consecutively treated either with a Bionator or an Activator followed by fixed appliances was compared with a control group of 20 subjects (9 females and 11 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (mean age 10 years), end of treatment with functional appliances (mean age 12 years), and long-term observation (mean age 18.6 years). The treated sample also was divided into two groups according to skeletal maturity. The early-treatment group was composed of 20 subjects (12 females and 8 males) treated before puberty, while the late-treatment group included 20 subjects (10 females and 10 males) treated at puberty. Statistical comparisons were performed with analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc tests.Results: Significant long-term mandibular changes (Co-Gn) in the treated group (3.6 mm over the controls) were associated with improvements in the skeletal sagittal intermaxillary relationship, overjet, and molar relationship (similar to 3.0-3.5 mm). Treatment during the pubertal peak was able to produce significantly greater increases in total mandibular length (4.3 mm) and mandibular ramus height (3.1 mm) associated with a significant advancement of the bony chin (3.9 mm) when compared with treatment before puberty.Conclusion: Treatment of Class II malocclusion with functional appliances appears to be more effective at puberty. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:334-340.)
Resumo:
Objective: To assess the effects produced by the MARA appliance in the treatment of Angle’s Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Methods: The sample consisted of 44 young patients divided into two groups: The MARA Group, with initial mean age of 11.99 years, treated with the MARA appliance for an average period of 1.11 years, and the Control Group, with initial mean age of 11.63 years, monitored for a mean period of 1.18 years with no treatment. Lateral cephalograms were used to compare the groups using cephalometric variables in the initial and final phases. For these comparisons, Student’s t test was employed. Results: MARA appliance produced the following effects: Maxillary growth restriction, no change in mandibular development, improvement in maxillomandibular relationship, increased lower anterior facial height and counterclockwise rotation of the functional occlusal plane. In the upper arch, the incisors moved lingually and retruded, while the molars moved distally and tipped distally. In the lower arch, the incisors proclined and protruded, whereas the molars mesialized and tipped mesially. Finally, there was a significant reduction in overbite and overjet, with an obvious improvement in molar relationship. Conclusions: It was concluded that the MARA appliance proved effective in correcting Angle’s Class II, division 1 malocclusion while inducing skeletal changes and particularly dental changes.
Resumo:
Introduction: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to investigate the cephalometric changes produced by bonded spurs associated with high-pull chincup therapy in children with Angle Class I malocclusion and anterior open bite. Methods: Thirty patients with an initial mean age of 8.14 years and a mean anterior open bite of 3.93 mm were treated with bonded spurs associated with chincup therapy for 12 months. An untreated control group of 30 subjects with an initial mean age of 8.36 years and a mean anterior open bite of 3.93 mm and the same malocclusion was followed for 12 months for comparison. Student t tests were used for intergroup comparisons. Results: The treated group demonstrated a significantly greater decrease of the gonial angle, and increase in overbite, palatal tipping of the maxillary incisors, and vertical dentoalveolar development of the maxillary and mandibular incisors compared with the control group. Conclusions: The association of bonded spurs with high-pull chincup therapy was efficient for the correction of the open bite in 86.7% of the patients, with a 5.23-mm (SD, 61.69) overbite increase.
Resumo:
Introduction: In this retrospective study, we compared the cephalometric effects, the dental-arch changes, and the efficiency of Class II treatment with the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, or extraction of 2 maxillary premolars, all associated with fixed appliance therapy. Methods: The sample of 82 patients with Class II malocclusion was divided into 3 groups: group 1 patients (n = 22; treatment time, 3.8 years) were treated with the pendulum appliance and fixed orthodontic appliances. Group 2 patients (n = 30; treatment time, 3.2 years) were treated with cervical headgear followed by fixed appliances; group 3 patients (n = 30; treatment time, 2.1 years) were treated with 2 maxillary premolar extractions and fixed appliances. The average starting ages of the groups ranged from 13.2 to 13.8 years. Data were obtained from serial cephalometric measurements and dental casts. The dental casts were analyzed with the treatment priority index. The treatment efficiency index was also used. Results: The 3 treatment protocols produced similar cephalometric effects, especially skeletally. Comparisons among the 2 distalizing appliances (pendulum and cervical headgear) and extraction of 2 maxillary premolars for Class II treatment showed changes primarily in the maxillary dentoalveolar component and dental relationships. The facial profile was similar after treatment, except for slightly more retrusion of the upper lip in the extraction patients. The treatment priority index demonstrated that occlusal outcomes also were similar among the groups. The treatment efficiency index had higher values for the extraction group. Conclusions: The effects of treatment with the pendulum appliance or cervical headgear and extraction of 2 maxillary premolars associated with fixed appliances were similar from both occlusal and cephalometric standpoints. Class II treatment with extraction of maxillary teeth was more efficient because of the shorter treatment time. Differences in maxillary incisor retraction should be noted, but these differences might have been due to greater maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in the extraction group before treatment. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:833-42)
Resumo:
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)
Resumo:
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)
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.