Treatment of Class II malocclusions with removable appliances. Part 3. Functional appliance therapy

BDJ ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 168 (6) ◽  
pp. 253-256
Author(s):  
W P Rock
2021 ◽  
pp. 146531252098287
Author(s):  
Adam C Jowett

This paper describes the orthodontic treatment of two cases that were successful in winning the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) Membership in Orthodontics (MOrth) Cases Prize in 2019. The first case describes the management of a 12-year-old girl with a Class II division 2 malocclusion complicated by moderate upper and lower arch crowding, multiple unerupted teeth, restored lower first permanent molars, pseudo-transposition of the lower left lateral incisor and canine, and diminutive upper lateral incisors. Treatment involved a combination of an upper removable appliance followed by upper and lower preadjusted edgewise fixed appliances. Anteroposterior correction and overbite reduction was achieved with triangular Class II elastics with posterior occlusal disengagement. Both upper permanent canines were exposed and aligned, and the diminutive upper incisors built up with resin-based composite. Treatment was completed over a period of 23 months. The second case describes the management of a 13-year-old boy with a Class II division 2 malocclusion complicated by severe upper and lower arch crowding with unerupted UR5, UL4, LR3, rotated LR5, an increased overbite complete to tooth, buccally displaced upper canines and hypoplastic upper first premolars. Treatment involved a first phase of functional appliance therapy, followed by the extraction of UR4, UL4, LL5, LR4 and upper and lower preadjusted edgewise fixed appliances over a 28-month period.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
E A Satygo ◽  
A V Silin ◽  
G O Ramirez-Yañez

Objective: A study was designed to determine changes in the amplitude of the EMG muscular activity of the Masseter and Temporalis muscles at clench in children with a Class II, division 1 malocclusion treated with the pre-orthodontic Trainer functional appliance, for 12 months. Study Design: 36 Class II, division 1 malocclusion patients (mean age 7.6 ± 1.3 years) composed the treated group and wore the functional appliance; 22 children with a similar age and malocclusion composed the untreated controls; and, 20 children with no dental malocclusion participated as normal controls. Electromyographic (EMG) muscular activity of the Temporalis and Masseter muscles were recorded before and after treatment. Results: Subjects in the treated group reported a bilateral significant increase in the muscular electrical activity in the both tested muscles (p < 0.001). After treatment, they recorded values similar to those measured in normal controls, whereas the untreated controls remained on lower values. Conclusion: These results confirm that treatment with the pre-orthodontic Trainer functional appliance significantly increases the EMG muscular activity in the Temporalis and Masseter muscles at clench in patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 296-302
Author(s):  
Irina Stupar ◽  
Enver Yetkiner ◽  
Daniel Wiedemeier ◽  
Thomas Attin ◽  
Rengin Attin

Background:Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs (LCR) are a common decision-making aid in orthodontic treatment planning and are routinely used in clinical practice. The aim of this present study was to test the null hypothesis that LCR evaluation does not alter specific components of orthodontic treatment planning in Class II patients.Materials and Methods:Records of 75 patients, who had been treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich comprised the study material. Inclusion criteria were: (1) adolescents between the age of 12-15, (2) permanent dentition with Class II buccal segment relationship (3) absence of craniofacial and dento-alveolar malformations. Fifteen orthodontists from the dental faculties of Istanbul University, Istanbul and Ege University, Izmir filled out Likert-type linear scale questionnaires without knowing that they would repeat the same procedure with and without LCRs at two different time points. Equivalence and clinical relevance were assessed using (%95 CI) Wilcoxon signed rank tests.Results:Extraction decision did not differ between groups (p=0.68). Preference of functional appliance use (p=0.006) and inter-maxillary fixed functional appliance (p=0.043) was different among groups.Conclusion:LCR evaluation has minor influence on treatment planning procedure of Class II patients. It might be beneficial to consider its prescription not in a routine manner but as a supplementary tool considering possible reduction of radiation exposure.


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 258-263
Author(s):  
Sayeeda Laeque Bangi ◽  
Ashok Talapaneni ◽  
Saravanan Pichai ◽  
Arshad Hussain

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. Antonarakis ◽  
H. Kjellberg ◽  
S. Kiliaridis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document