Non-Extraction Treatment of a Class II Malocclusion Patient with Severe Crowding Using Orthodontic Mini-Implants with Interproximal Reduction

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-308
Author(s):  
Myung-Hyun Tark
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Extraction Treatment

scholarly journals Adequacy of molar distalization after second and third molar eruption- a case report

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Sarath Babu Balina ◽  
Durga Harsha G V ◽  
Padmapriya C V ◽  
Varma DPK ◽  
Goutham C V
Keyword(s):  
Third Molar ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Average Growth ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible ◽  
Third Molar Eruption

Adult patients with class II malocclusion can be treated routinely by extraction therapy. In the recent decades there was increasing popularity towards non-extraction treatment. Distalization of maxillary molars is one of the prime treatment modality to correct mild to moderate class II malocclusion cases with esthetically acceptable profile. A 16 years old female patient reported with irregularly placed upper front teeth and was diagnosed as Angle’s Class II malocclusion with orthognathic maxilla and mandible, average growth pattern. Treatment was planned to distalize the entire maxillary arch using mini implants as skeletal anchorage. 4.0 mm of maxillary molars were distalized, class I molar and canine relation were achieved bilaterally within span of 10 months without altering the patient’s existing profile.  

scholarly journals Dentofacial changes associated with uniarch extraction treatment of class II malocclusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 92-104
Author(s):  
Maher Fouda ◽  
Ahmed El Bialy ◽  
Yasser Mahmoud ◽  
Ghada El Mehy
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Extraction Treatment

scholarly journals Mini-implant Supported Lip Bumper

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110221
Author(s):  
Aravinthrajkumar Govindaraj ◽  
Ashwin Mathew George
Keyword(s):  
Normal Growth ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Lower Lip ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Skeletal Class Ii ◽  
Lip Bumper

Patients with a skeletal class II malocclusion are usually associated with a prognathic maxilla with orthognathic mandible or a retrognathic mandible with orthognathic maxilla or a combination of both. Patients with severe prognathic maxilla are usually associated with increased overjet which results in a lower lip trap. The lip trap should be managed the earliest as it will lead to further proclination of the upper anterior teeth and also hinder the normal growth of the mandible. To overcome the limitations of a conventional lip bumper, we arrived at an idea of fixed lip bumper supported using mini-implants.

scholarly journals Identification of Orthodontic Extraction Predictors in End-On Class II Malocclusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (03) ◽  
pp. 178-182
Author(s):  
Batool Ali ◽  
◽  
Waqar Jeelani ◽  
Attiya Shaikh ◽  
Tabassum Ahsan Quadeer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Upper Lip ◽  
Lower Incisor ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Treatment Predictors ◽  
Extraction Treatment

BJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the different treatment predictors which help in the extraction and non-extraction decision of an end-on Class II malocclusion case. METHODOLOGY: The pretreatment records of 240 adult subjects aged 15-40 years with bilateral end-on Class II molar relationship were retrospectively selected and categorized under extraction (120) and non-extraction (120) treatment categories. The extraction cases were planned for different combinations of premolar extractions. The independent variables i.e., the cephalometric and orthodontic cast measurements were obtained from the recruited sample. Binary logistic regression analysis was applied using SPSS software. RESULTS: Increased upper and lower incisor inclinations (p < 0.001) and procumbent upper lip (p = 0.004) was statistically significant in the extraction group. According to the regression model, the odds of extraction treatment were 1.12 times greater than non-extraction treatment for every one degree increase in upper and lower incisor inclinations, respectively. The chances of extraction treatment were 1.6 times higher than non-extraction treatment for every 1 mm increase in the distance of upper lip to S-plane. CONCLUSIONS: The upper and lower incisors inclinations and upper lip position are the critical factors affecting the extraction decision in adult patients with end-on Class II molar relationships. Overjet, dental crowding and the vertical growth pattern were found to be clinically insignificant in opting for an extraction treatment plan for such cases. KEYWORDS: Treatment, Angle Class II, tooth extraction, non-extraction

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document