Adding temporary anchorage devices (TADs) to the ForsusTM class II correction system may not enhance the sagittal skeletal effects but may control the inclination of the mandibular incisors.

ABSTRACT Objective: To detect three-dimensionally the effects of using mini-implant anchorage with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD). Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 43 skeletal Class II females with deficient mandibles. They were randomly allocated into three groups: 16 patients (13.25 ± 1.12 years) received FFRD alone (Forsus group), 15 subjects (13.07 ± 1.41 years) received FFRD and mini-implants (FMI group), and 12 subjects (12.71 ± 1.44 years) were in the untreated control group. Three-dimensional analyses of cone beam computed tomographic images were completed, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: Class I relationship and overjet correction were achieved in 88% of the cases. None of the two treatment groups showed significant mandibular skeletal effects. In the FMI group, significant headgear effect, decrease in maxillary width, and increase in the lower facial height were noted. In the FMI group, retroclination of maxillary incisors and distalization of maxillary molars were significantly higher. Proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the Forsus group. Conclusions: FFRD resulted in Class II correction mainly through dentoalveolar effects and with minimal skeletal effects. Utilization of mini-implant anchorage effectively reduced the unfavorable proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors but did not produce additional skeletal effects.

Download Full-text

Effects of fixed functional appliances with temporary anchorage devices on Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists ◽

10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.02.001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yanmei Huang ◽

Wentian Sun ◽

Xin Xiong ◽

Zihan Zhang ◽

Jin Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Class Ii ◽

Class Ii Malocclusion ◽

Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽

Functional Appliances

Download Full-text

Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment using TADs: Case report

Stomatoloski glasnik Srbije ◽

10.2298/sgs2003159p ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 67 (3) ◽

pp. 159-164

Author(s):

Tina Pajevic ◽

Jovana Juloski ◽

Marija Zivkovic

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Orthodontic Treatment ◽

Class Ii ◽

Dental Arch ◽

Class Ii Malocclusion ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽

Division 1 ◽

Incisor Retraction ◽

Class Ii Division 1

Introduction. Orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 (II/1) malocclusions in adults can be challenging since skeletal effects are limited. Possible treatment options are orthodontic camouflage or orthognatic surgery, in severe cases. The aim of this paper was to present a successful management of Class II malocclusion in an adult patient using temporary anchorage devices (TADs). Case report. After detailed clinical examination, study models and cephalometric analysis, a 26 years old patient was diagnosed with Class II malocclusion, an overjet of 12 mm, congenitally missing tooth 41 and midline shifted to the right in upper dental arch. In prior orthodontic treatment, patient had upper premolars extracted. Posterior teeth in upper left quadrant were shifted mesially. The camouflage treatment was considered, using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) to distalize posterior teeth on the left side, and gain space for incisor retraction and midline correction in upper dental arch. Results. Using TADs as additional anchorage in anterior region and coil spring for molar distalization, the space was made for tooth 23, midline correction and incisor retraction. After 40 months, a satisfactory result was achieved, overjet and midline correction, class I canines occlusion and class II molar occlusion. Conclusion. Class II/1 malocclusion in adults can be successfully treated using TADs. The success depends on the severity of malocclusion and patient cooperation.

Download Full-text

Long-term skeletal effects of high-pull headgear followed by fixed appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/091517-620.1 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 88 (5) ◽

pp. 530-537

Author(s):

E. Erin Bilbo ◽

Steven D. Marshall ◽

Karin A. Southard ◽

Verrasathpurush Allareddy ◽

Nathan Holton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Class Ii ◽

Class I ◽

Control Group ◽

Orthodontic Appliances ◽

Skeletal Changes ◽

Fixed Orthodontic Appliances ◽

Horizontal Growth ◽

Skeletal Effects ◽

Fixed Appliances

ABSTRACT Objectives: The long-term skeletal effects of Class II treatment in growing individuals using high-pull facebow headgear and fixed edgewise appliances have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term skeletal effects of treatment using high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances compared to an untreated control group. Materials and Methods: Changes in anteroposterior and vertical cephalometric measurements of 42 Class II subjects (n = 21, mean age = 10.7 years) before treatment, after headgear correction to Class I molar relationship, after treatment with fixed appliances, and after long-term retention (mean 4.1 years), were compared to similar changes in a matched control group (n = 21, mean age = 10.9 years) by multivariable linear regression models. Results: Compared to control, the study group displayed significant long-term horizontal restriction of A-point (SNA = −1.925°, P < .0001; FH-NA = −3.042°, P < .0001; linear measurement A-point to Vertical Reference = −3.859 mm, P < .0001) and reduction of the ANB angle (−1.767°, P < .0001), with no effect on mandibular horizontal growth or maxillary and mandibular vertical skeletal changes. A-point horizontal restriction and forward mandibular horizontal growth accompanied the study group correction to Class I molar, and these changes were stable long term. Conclusions: One phase treatment for Class II malocclusion with high-pull headgear followed by fixed orthodontic appliances resulted in correction to Class I molar through restriction of horizontal maxillary growth with continued horizontal mandibular growth and vertical skeletal changes unaffected. The anteroposterior molar correction and skeletal effects of this treatment were stable long term.

Download Full-text

Dental and skeletal effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate on hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusions in adolescents

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/031720-18.1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Chang Yoon Jung ◽

Jae Hyun Park ◽

Ja Hyeong Ku ◽

Nam-Ki Lee ◽

Yoonji Kim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Orthodontic Treatment ◽

Class Ii ◽

Study Group ◽

Class Ii Malocclusion ◽

Plane Angle ◽

Mandibular Plane ◽

Lateral Cephalograms ◽

Palatal Plate ◽

Skeletal Effects ◽

Facial Types

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the dental and skeletal treatment effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plates (MCPPs) on adolescent patients with hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods The study group included 40 patients with Class II malocclusion (18 boys and 22 girls, mean age = 12.2 ± 1.4 years) treated with MCPPs. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalizing process in both groups. Participants were divided into hypo- or hyperdivergent groups based on their pretreatment Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) ≤22° or ≥28°, respectively. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were digitized, and 23 variables were measured and compared for both groups using paired and independent t-tests. Results The hyper- and hypodivergent groups showed 2.7 mm and 4.3 mm of first molar crown distalizing movement, respectively (P < .001). The hypodivergent group had a slight 2.2° crown distal tipping of first molars compared with 0.3° in the hyperdivergent group. After distalization, the FMA increased 3.1° and 0.3°, in the hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups, respectively (P < .001). SNA decreased in the hypodivergent group, while other skeletal variables presented no statistically significant differences in the changes between the groups. Conclusions The hypodivergent group showed more distal and tipping movement of the maxillary first molar and increased FMA than the hyperdivergent group. Therefore, clinicians must consider vertical facial types when distalizing molars using MCPPs in Class II nonextraction treatment.

Download Full-text