Emad A A Al-Khateeb1, Susan N Al-Khateeb. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze the skeletal and dental characteristics associated with Class II division 1 (Class II/1) and Class II division 2 (Class II/2) malocclusions in the anteroposterior and vertical dimensions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 551 lateral cephalograms were used; 293 films of Class II/1 and 258 films of Class II/2 malocclusions. Lateral cephalographs were traced and analyzed. Parameters for both malocclusions were compared with each other and with the norms calculated for the Jordanian population in another study. RESULTS: The maxilla was prognathic in both malocclusions. The mandible was retrognathic in Class II/1 and orthognathic in Class II/2. Vertically, LAFH was significantly reduced in patients with Class II/2 compared with subjects with Class II/1 who exhibited a significantly increased LAFH. In Class II/1, the lower incisors were proclined and the interincisal angle was reduced, while in Class II/2 the lower incisors were at a normal inclination and the interincisal angle was significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Class II/2 may be considered as a separate entity which differs in almost all skeletal and dental features from Class I and Class II/1. A Class II skeletal pattern and reduced interincisal angle were common features of Class II/1 malocclusion, while a Class II skeletal pattern, increased interincisal angle, and skeletal deep bite were common features of Class II/2 malocclusion.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze the skeletal and dental characteristics associated with Class II division 1 (Class II/1) and Class II division 2 (Class II/2) malocclusions in the anteroposterior and vertical dimensions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 551 lateral cephalograms were used; 293 films of Class II/1 and 258 films of Class II/2 malocclusions. Lateral cephalographs were traced and analyzed. Parameters for both malocclusions were compared with each other and with the norms calculated for the Jordanian population in another study. RESULTS: The maxilla was prognathic in both malocclusions. The mandible was retrognathic in Class II/1 and orthognathic in Class II/2. Vertically, LAFH was significantly reduced in patients with Class II/2 compared with subjects with Class II/1 who exhibited a significantly increased LAFH. In Class II/1, the lower incisors were proclined and the interincisal angle was reduced, while in Class II/2 the lower incisors were at a normal inclination and the interincisal angle was significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Class II/2 may be considered as a separate entity which differs in almost all skeletal and dental features from Class I and Class II/1. A Class II skeletal pattern and reduced interincisal angle were common features of Class II/1 malocclusion, while a Class II skeletal pattern, increased interincisal angle, and skeletal deep bite were common features of Class II/2 malocclusion.
Authors: Lina M Moreno Uribe; Sara C Howe; Colleen Kummet; Kaci C Vela; Deborah V Dawson; Thomas E Southard Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Sherif A Elkordy; Amr M Abouelezz; Mona M S Fayed; Mai H Aboulfotouh; Yehya A Mostafa Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 2.079