DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Correction of Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion with a mandibular protraction appliances and multiloop edgewise archwire technique

  • Freitas, Benedito (Discipline of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Maranhao) ;
  • Freitas, Heloiza (Private Practice) ;
  • dos Santos, Pedro Cesar F. (Discipline of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Ceara) ;
  • Janson, Guilherme (Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of Sao Paulo)
  • Received : 2013.09.21
  • Accepted : 2013.11.15
  • Published : 2014.09.25

Abstract

A Brazilian girl aged 14 years and 9 months presented with a chief complaint of protrusive teeth. She had a convex facial profile, extreme overjet, deep bite, lack of passive lip seal, acute nasolabial angle, and retrognathic mandible. Intraorally, she showed maxillary diastemas, slight mandibular incisor crowding, a small maxillary arch, 13-mm overjet, and 4-mm overbite. After the diagnosis of severe Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion, a mandibular protraction appliance was placed to correct the Class II relationships and multiloop edgewise archwires were used for finishing. Follow-up examinations revealed an improved facial profile, normal overjet and overbite, and good intercuspation. The patient was satisfied with her occlusion, smile, and facial appearance. The excellent results suggest that orthodontic camouflage by using a mandibular protraction appliance in combination with the multiloop edgewise archwire technique is an effective option for correcting Class II malocclusions in patients who refuse orthognathic surgery.

References

  1. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental cosmos 1899;41:248-64.
  2. Thüer U, Ingervall B. Pressure from the lips on the teeth and malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;90:234-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(86)90070-3
  3. Jenny J, Cons NC. Comparing and contrasting two orthodontic indices, the Index of Orthodontic Treatment need and the Dental Aesthetic Index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:410-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70044-6
  4. Dolce C, Mansour DA, McGorray SP, Wheeler TT. Intrarater agreement about the etiology of Class II malocclusion and treatment approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.07.015
  5. Coelho Filho CM. Mandibular protraction appliances for Class II treatment. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:319-36.
  6. Kim YH. Tratamiento de maloclusiones severas mediante la técnica de alambre Edgewise Multiloop (Multiloop Edgewise Arch-Wire, MEAW). Ortodoncia Clínica 2004;7:22-34.
  7. WHO. Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997.
  8. Ghafari J, Shofer FS, Jacobsson-Hunt U, Markowitz DL, Laster LL. Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70276-8
  9. Wong L, Hägg U, Wong G. Correction of extreme overjet in 2 phases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:540-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.019
  10. Stahl F, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Longitudinal growth changes in untreated subjects with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:125-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.028
  11. Baccetti T, Stahl F, McNamara JA Jr. Dentofacial growth changes in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion from late puberty through young adulthood. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:148-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.033
  12. Mihalik CA, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Long-term followup of Class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: a comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:266-78. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.43
  13. 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;126:140-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.011
  14. Bock NC, von Bremen J, Ruf S. Occlusal stability of adult Class II Division 1 treatment with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:146-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.031
  15. Janson G, Valarelli FP, Cançado RH, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A. Relationship between malocclusion severity and treatment success rate in Class II nonextraction therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:274.e1-8.
  16. Johnston LE Jr. A comparative analysis of Class II treatments. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA, editors. Science and clinical judgment in orthodontics. Monograph 19, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan; 1986.
  17. Janson I. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in patients treated with a bionator during prepubertal and pubertal growth. In: McNamara JA Jr, Ribbens KA, Howe RP, editors. Clinical alteration of the growing face. Monograph 14, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, The University of Michigan; 1983.
  18. Janson G, Barros SEC, de Freitas MR, Henriques JFC, Pinzan A. Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and nonextraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:490-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.031
  19. Xu TM, Liu Y, Yang MZ, Huang W. Comparison of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment outcomes for borderline Chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:672-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.007
  20. Coelho Filho CM. Mandibular protraction appliance IV. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:18-24.
  21. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1999;69:239-46.
  22. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:607-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70285-4
  23. Kinzinger G, Diedrich P. Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:469-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-005-0524-2
  24. Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Fulya I. Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2005;75:426-36.
  25. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. a prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:352-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji116
  26. Popowich K, Nebbe B, Heo G, Glover KE, Major PW. Predictors for Class II treatment duration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:293-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.12.025
  27. Herrera FS, Henriques JF, Janson G, Francisconi MF, de Freitas KM. Cephalometric evaluation in different phases of Jasper jumper therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.018
  28. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:335-40. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.107009