Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

Treatment of Mandibular Impacted Canine in a Patient with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion with "Reverse Pin": A Case Report

This case report presents an orthodontic treatment conducted on a 13-year-old girl with bilateral Class II malocclusion and a mandibular impacted canine. The presence of an impacted tooth necessitates careful consideration of the timing of orthodontic treatment, the appropriate surgical procedure to expose the tooth, the specific orthodontic mechanics involved, and the potential problems that may arise, all of which depend on the type and location of the canine impaction in the jaw. The treatment plan included a surgical procedure to expose the impacted tooth and orthodontic traction to guide it into position. Correction of the Class II Division 1 malocclusion utilized a specialized technique called the "reverse pin", reducing vertical side effects. The revised version maintains clarity and key information about the case report and treatment.

Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types

Background

The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction.

Methods

Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N (p = 0.02) while it decreased -0.23 ± 2.25° (p = 0.60); These changes were not significant between groups after treatment (p = 0.680). Most dentoskeletal measurements changed significantly within groups but none of them showed statistically significant differences between groups after treatment. Dental and soft tissue changes were in accordance with the biomechanics used for this Class II orthodontic therapy.

Discussion

The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.

Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions

The aim of the present retrospective study was evaluating skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes of two groups of Class II patients orthodontically treated with extractions of upper first premolars (U4 group) and upper first molars (U6 group). In total, 21 patient records (9M and 12F; mean age 12.5 ± 1.2 years) were selected for the U4 group, and 38 patient records (17M and 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) were recruited for the U6 group. Twenty cephalometric variables were analysed on standardised lateral cephalograms at baseline (T0) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T1). Means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for both groups and increments were calculated. After revealing the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro–Wilk test, Student’s t-test was used to compare variables at T0 between groups. A paired t-test was used to analyse changes between time points within each group, and Student’s t-test to compare differences between groups at T1. Both groups showed a significant increase in the distance among upper second molars and the vertical pterygoid line (PTV-maxillary second molar centroid U6 group: 6.66 ± 5.00 mm; U4 group: 3.66 ± 2.20 mm). Moreover, the distance of upper incisors to the palatal plane significantly increased (PP-maxillary incisor tip U6 group: 1.09 ± 1.52 mm; U4 group: 0.20 ± 2.00 mm; p = 0.061). Significant changes were found for overjet (U6 group: −4.86 ± 1.62 mm; U4 group: −3.27 ± 1.90 mm; p = 0.001). The distance between upper lip and esthetic plane showed a significantly reduction in both groups (ULip-E Plane U6 group: −2.98 ± 1.65 mm; U4 group: −1.93 ± 1.57 mm). No statistically significant changes were found in sagittal or vertical skeletal values. The significantly larger reduction of upper lip protrusion and overjet in the U6 group compared to the U4 group suggests preferring molar extraction treatment for severe Class II with protrusive soft tissues’ profile and increased overjet. Since no differences on vertical values were found, an increased SN^GoGn angle should not be considered a discriminating factor for choosing molar extraction treatment.