Asymmetry in Class II subdivision malocclusion: Assessment based on 3D surface models

Class II subdivision treatment and stability with asymmetric Herbst appliance: A case report

Non-surgical treatment of Class II subdivision may involve complex mechanics or asymmetric tooth extraction in its resolution. This report demonstrates the result and the short-term stability of Class II subdivision treated with asymmetrically installed Herbst appliance followed by conventional fixed orthodontic appliance. The approach allowed the correction of the unilateral Class II molar relationship and increased overjet, as well as the deviation of dental midlines, with improvement in lip posture and facial profile. The results remained stable two years after treatment, confirming the treatment success.

A finite element study comparing Advansync® and Twin Block in mandibular anterior repositioning

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to utilize the finite element method (FEM) to compare the dentoalveolar and mandibular effects associated with anterior mandibular repositioning using AdvanSync® (ADV) and Twin Block (TB).

METHODS

A patient with Class II skeletal malocclusion and mandibular retrognathism was selected. A TB appliance was subsequently applied. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were acquired at the beginning of treatment (T1) and 8 months later (T2). Concurrently, a numerical TB model was validated through FEM simulations, which were compared with the T2 results. The ADV appliance was virtually simulated to evaluate stress and deformation on the condyle, symphysis, first lower molar and lower central incisors.

RESULTS

Both simulations demonstrated significant mandibular advancement. However, ADV led to less incisor proclination and more molar intrusion compared to TB. ADV exhibited increased stress in the lower molar area, while TB had higher stress in the lower incisor region. Stress and deformations in the condyle and mandibular symphysis were similar in both simulations, with the highest stress observed at the condylar neck and the lowest at the upper pole of the condylar head.

CONCLUSIONS

Both appliances achieved similar levels of mandibular advancement, with greater proclination of the lower central incisors and more widespread distribution of stress and molar intrusion when using ADV compared to TB.