Class II Division 2 Treatment--does Skeletal Maturity Influence Success and Stability?

Overview

Journal J Orofac Orthop

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 May 9

PMID 23652739

Citations 4

Authors

N C Bock

S Ruf

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: To analyze the influence of skeletal maturity on Herbst multibracket (MB) treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions and its stability.

Material And Methods: A total of 37 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Class II division 2, fully erupted premolars and canines, Class II molar relationship ≥1/2 cusp widths bilaterally or 1 cusp width unilaterally, retention period ≥24 months). According to pretreatment hand wrist skeletal maturity the subjects were assigned to the groups EARLY (n=9), LATE (n=14) and ADULT (n=14). Lateral headfilms (T1: before treatment, T2: after Herbst MB treatment, T3: after retention) were analyzed using the Sagittal-Occlusal analysis and standard cephalometrics.

Results: During Herbst MB treatment (T2-T1), significant (p<0.001) molar relationship improvement was seen in all groups (EARLY: 3.6 mm; LATE: 3.7 mm; ADULT: 3.2 mm). The amount of skeletal effects contributing to molar correction varied markedly between the groups (EARLY: 19%; LATE: 62%; ADULT: 31%). Improvement (p<0.01) was also seen for ssNB angle (EARLY: 1.8°; LATE: 1.8°; ADULT: 0.9°) and overbite (EARLY: 3.3 mm; LATE: 4.5 mm; ADULT: 4.3 mm). During retention (T3-T2), minimal changes of molar relationship (<0.2 mm) and ssNB angle (<0.5°) were seen in all groups. Also the overbite relapsed (EARLY: 0.5 mm; LATE: 1.0 mm; ADULT: 1.1 mm) only to a clinically irrelevant extent.

Conclusion: Irrespective of skeletal maturity, Herbst MB treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions showed to be successful and stable. However, the LATE group showed the highest amount of skeletal effects contributing to the correction of the molar relationship.

Citing Articles

Correction of Deep Overbite by Using a Modified Nance Appliance in an Adult Class II Division 2 Patient with Dehiscence Defect.

Li Z, Chen Z, Sun J, Yang L, Chen Z Case Rep Dent. 2018; 2018:9563875.

PMID: 30258658 PMC: 6146654. DOI: 10.1155/2018/9563875.

Predictive factors of sagittal stability after treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Maniewicz Wins S, Antonarakis G, Kiliaridis S Angle Orthod. 2015; 86(6):1033-1041.

PMID: 26618887 PMC: 8597336. DOI: 10.2319/052415-350.1.

Progenitor Cells of the Mandibular Condylar Cartilage.

Robinson J, OBrien A, Chen J, Wadhwa S Curr Mol Biol Rep. 2015; 1(3):110-114.

PMID: 26500836 PMC: 4613756. DOI: 10.1007/s40610-015-0019-x.

Stability of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bock N, von Bremen J, Ruf S Eur J Orthod. 2015; 38(2):129-39.

PMID: 25820407 PMC: 4914754. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv009.

References

Kim T, LITTLE R . Postretention assessment of deep overbite correction in Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69(2):175-86. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0175:PAODOC>2.3.CO;2. View

Ruf S, Hansen K, Pancherz H . Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114(1):100-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70244-6. View

Ingervall B, Seeman L, Thilander B . Frequency of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in 10-year old children in Gothenburg. Sven Tandlak Tidskr. 1972; 65(1):7-21. View

Fletcher G . The retroclined upper incisor. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2(4):207-16. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.2.4.207. View

Pancherz H . Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16(4):275-86. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/16.4.275. View

Pancherz H, Ruf S, Erbe C, Hansen K . The mechanism of Class II correction in surgical orthodontic treatment of adult Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2005; 74(6):800-9. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0800:TMOCIC>2.0.CO;2. View

Ruf S, Pancherz H . Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69(3):239-46. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0239:DEAFPC>2.3.CO;2. View

Ludwig M . An analysis of anterior overbite relationship changes during and following orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1966; 36(3):204-10. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1966)036<0204:AAOAOR>2.0.CO;2. View

Pancherz H . The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(2):104-13. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4. View

10.

Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hagg U . Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 1991; 13(6):471-81. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/13.6.471. View

11.

Lapatki B, Klatt A, Schulte-Monting J, Jonas I . Dentofacial parameters explaining variability in retroclination of the maxillary central incisors. J Orofac Orthop. 2007; 68(2):109-23. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-007-0637-x. View

12.

Binda S, Kuijpers-Jagtman A, Maertens J, van t Hof M . A long-term cephalometric evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16(4):301-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/16.4.301. View

13.

Millett D, Cunningham S, OBrien K, Benson P, Williams A, de Oliveira C . Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; (4):CD005972. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005972.pub2. View

14.

HOUSTON W . Incisor edge-centroid relationships and overbite depth. Eur J Orthod. 1989; 11(2):139-43. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035976. View

15.

POSEN A . The influence of maximum perioral and tongue force on the incisor teeth. Angle Orthod. 1972; 42(4):285-309. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1972)042<0285:TIOMPA>2.0.CO;2. View

16.

Mills J . The problem of overbite in Class II, division 2 malocclusion. Br J Orthod. 1973; 1(1):34-48. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.1.1.34. View

17.

Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M . Class II Division 2 malocclusion: a heritable pattern of small teeth in well-developed jaws. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68(1):9-20. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068<0009:CIDMAH>2.3.CO;2. View

18.

Berg R . Stability of deep overbite correction. Eur J Orthod. 1983; 5(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/5.1.75. View

19.

Karlsen A . Craniofacial characteristics in children with Angle Class II div. 2 malocclusion combined with extreme deep bite. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64(2):123-30. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0123:CCICWA>2.0.CO;2. View

20.

Schweitzer M, Pancherz H . The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71(5):358-63. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0358:TILRIH>2.0.CO;2. View