Camouflage Treatment of a Severe Deep-Bite and Orthognathic Surgery Required Case with En Masse Retraction

Overview

Journal Turk J Orthod

Publisher Galenos Publishing House

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2018 Aug 17

PMID 30112504

Citations 2

Authors

Zeynep Buyukbayraktar

Cenk Doruk

Hasan Camci

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In adult patients with severe class II division 2 malocclusion, the ideal treatment option is the orthognathic surgery. However, camouflage therapy is also an acceptable treatment option due to its less traumatic and acceptable esthetic and functional results. In this case report, the camouflage treatment with two maxillary premolar extractions in a 21-year-old female patient who did not accept orthognathic surgery is presented. Acceptable esthetic and functional results were obtained at the end of the treatment.

Citing Articles

Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.

Akin S, Camci H Prog Orthod. 2021; 22(1):24.

PMID: 34368923 PMC: 8349943. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-021-00374-4.

Two middle-aged cases of deep overbite without molar support treated by orthognathic surgery.

Akizuki K, Fujita K, Kobayashi H, Tsuchida Y, Shimo T Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019; 63:135-142.

PMID: 31585324 PMC: 6796729. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.09.027.

References

Kuhlberg A, Glynn E . Treatment planning considerations for adult patients. Dent Clin North Am. 1997; 41(1):17-27. View

Park H, Kwon T . Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(5):703-10. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0703:SMWMIA>2.0.CO;2. View

Ruf S, Pancherz H . Orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in adult Class II Division 1 treatment: mandibular sagittal split osteotomy versus Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126(2):140-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.011. View

Qamruddin I, Shahid F, Alam M, Jamal W . Camouflage of Severe Skeletal Class II Gummy Smile Patient Treated Nonsurgically with Mini Implants. Case Rep Dent. 2014; 2014:382367. PMC: 4274844. DOI: 10.1155/2014/382367. View

Ackerman J, Proffit W . Soft tissue limitations in orthodontics: treatment planning guidelines. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67(5):327-36. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0327:STLIOT>2.3.CO;2. View

Xu T, Zhang X, Oh H, Boyd R, Korn E, Baumrind S . Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138(5):544.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.027. View

Kubein-Meesenburg D, Ihlow D . The problems of borderline cases: an aid for the analysis of orthodontic therapies. J Orofac Orthop. 2006; 67(3):207-14. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-006-0548-2. View

Bell R, Kiyak H, Joondeph D, McNeill R, Wallen T . Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88(4):323-32. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90132-0. View

Bishara S, Cummins D, Jakobsen J, Zaher A . Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107(1):28-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70154-0. View

10.

Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Nanda R . Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(2):240-7. DOI: 10.2319/013008-52.1. View

11.

Thiruvenkatachari B, Pavithranand A, Rajasigamani K, Kyung H . Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(4):551-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.014. View

12.

Mihalik C, Proffit W, Phillips C . Long-term follow-up of Class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: a comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123(3):266-78. PMC: 3556244. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.43. View