Correction of the transverse discrepancy-induced spontaneous mandibular protrusion in Class II Division 1 adolescent patients

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

12
Reader(s)
15
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 32 , ISSUE 2 (November 2016) > List of articles

Correction of the transverse discrepancy-induced spontaneous mandibular protrusion in Class II Division 1 adolescent patients

Yanfang Yu / Mengjie Wu / Xuepeng Chen / Wen Li *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 148-154, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-122

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Background: A Class II malocclusion is the most frequent sagittal skeletal disharmony presenting for orthodontic treatment. A transverse interarch discrepancy (TID) may be considered as a possible functional cause of a Class II relationship.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to determine transverse interarch width dimensions before and after orthodontic therapy and their possible relationship with increased mandibular projection following treatment.

Methods: The sample included 40 adolescent patients who were divided into two groups, one possessing and one without a transverse discrepancy. Interarch width differences (including ICWD, IPWD, IMWD, IAWD) were measured before and after treatment, and Pogonion (Pog) to Nasion (N) perpendicular was similarly measured in each group. Results: The differences in arch and alveolar width dimensions between the two groups (including ICWD, IPWDI, IPWDII, IMWD, IAWD) before treatment were statistically significant (p < 0.05). A comparison of Pog to N perpendicular between the two groups showed that mandibular protrusion after treatment in the transverse discrepancy group was 2.6 ± 1.3 mm, while mandibular protrusion after treatment in the group without a transverse discrepancy was 0.6 ± 0.3 mm. The statistical comparison showed that the differences were significant (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: A transverse interarch discrepancy may have a functional relationship with mandible retrusion. If a transverse discrepancy is corrected via orthodontic treatment, the mandible may spontaneously protrude.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Moyers RE. Handbook of orthodontics. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1988; 191.

2. Tollaro I, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Tanasescu CD. Role of posterior transverse interarch discrepancy in Class II, division 1 malocclusion during the mixed dentition phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:417-22.

3. Staley RN, Stuntz WR, Peterson LC. A comparison of arch width in adults with normal occlusion and adults with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1985;88:163-9.

4. Varrela J. Early developmental traits in Class II malocclusion. Acta Odontol Scand 1998;56:375-7.

5. Shu R, Han X, Wang Y, Xu H, Ai D, Wang L et al. Comparison of arch width, alveolar width and buccolingual inclination of teeth between Class II division 1 malocclusion and Class I occlusion. Angle Orthod 2013;83:246-52.

6. Fröhlich FJ. A longitudinal study of untreated Class II type malocclusion. Trans Eur Orthop Soc 1961;37:137-9.

7. Fröhlich FJ. Changes in untreated Class II type malocclusions. Angle Orthod 1962;32:167-79.

8. Uysal T, Memili B, Usumez S, Sari Z. Dental and alveolar arch widths in normal occlusion, Class II division 1 and Class II division 2. Angle Orthod 2005;75:941-7.

9. Sayin MO, Turkkahraman H. Comparison of dental arch and alveolar widths of patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion and subjects with Class I ideal occlusion. Angle Orthod 2004;74:356-60.

10. Ball RL, Miner RM, Will LA, Arai K. Comparison of dental and apical base arch forms in Class II division 1 and Class I malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:41-50.

11. Spear FM, Kokich VG, Mathews DP. Interdisciplinary management of anterior dental esthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:160-9.

12. Ciambotti C, Ngan P, Durkee M, Kohli K, Kim H. A comparison of dental and dentoalveolar changes between rapid palatal expansion and nickel-titanium palatal expansion appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:11-20.

13. Buschang PH, Stroud J, Alexander RG. Differences in dental arch morphology among adult females with untreated Class I and Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:47-52.

14. Kirjavainen M, Kirjavainen T, Hurmerinta K, Haavikko K. Orthopedic cervical headgear with an expanded inner bow in Class II correction. Angle Orthod 2000;70:317-25.

15. Haas AJ. Headgear therapy: the most efficient way to distalize molars. Semin Orthod 2000;6:79-90.

16. McNamara JA. Maxillary transverse deficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000:117:567-70.

17. McNamara JA Jr, Sigler LM, Franchi L, Guest SS, Baccetti T. Changes in occlusal relationships in mixed dentition patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion. A prospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 2010;80:230-8.

18. Timmons LS. Induced change in the anteroposterior relationship of the jaws. Angle Orthod 1972;42:245-51.

19. Volk T, Sadowsky C, Begole EA, Boice P. Rapid palatal expansion for spontaneous Class II correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:310-5.

20. Guest SS, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L. Improving Class II malocclusion as a side-effect of rapid maxillary expansion: a prospective clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010:138:582-91.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS