OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effects of maxillary anterior teeth retraction with mini-implant anchorage in young adults with Class II division 1 malocclusion undergoing extraction of the maxillary first premolars with similar patients treated by a fixed functional appliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four young adult female patients (mean age 16.5 ± 3.2 years, overjet ≥ 6 mm) with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), in which overjet correction was obtained with a fixed functional appliance (FFA), and group 2 (G2), in which upper first premolars were extracted, followed by space closure with MIs as anchor units. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes were analyzed on lateral cephalograms taken before (T1) and after (T2) correction of the overjet. RESULTS: Both methods were useful in improving the overjet and interincisal relationships. Extrusion and mesial movement of the lower molar, together with lower incisor proclination, were noted in G1. G2 showed distalization and intrusion of the upper molar. The nasio-labial angle became more obtuse in G2, while lower lip protrusion was seen for G1. CONCLUSIONS: The two treatment protocols provided adequate dental compensation for the Class II malocclusion, but did not correct the skeletal discrepancy. There were significant differences in the dental and soft tissue treatment effects between the two treatment protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effects of maxillary anterior teeth retraction with mini-implant anchorage in young adults with Class II division 1 malocclusion undergoing extraction of the maxillary first premolars with similar patients treated by a fixed functional appliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four young adult female patients (mean age 16.5 ± 3.2 years, overjet ≥ 6 mm) with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), in which overjet correction was obtained with a fixed functional appliance (FFA), and group 2 (G2), in which upper first premolars were extracted, followed by space closure with MIs as anchor units. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes were analyzed on lateral cephalograms taken before (T1) and after (T2) correction of the overjet. RESULTS: Both methods were useful in improving the overjet and interincisal relationships. Extrusion and mesial movement of the lower molar, together with lower incisor proclination, were noted in G1. G2 showed distalization and intrusion of the upper molar. The nasio-labial angle became more obtuse in G2, while lower lip protrusion was seen for G1. CONCLUSIONS: The two treatment protocols provided adequate dental compensation for the Class II malocclusion, but did not correct the skeletal discrepancy. There were significant differences in the dental and soft tissue treatment effects between the two treatment protocols.
Authors: Abbie T Schaefer; James A McNamara; Lorenzo Franchi; Tiziano Baccetti Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Safa Jambi; Tanya Walsh; Jonathan Sandler; Philip E Benson; Richard M Skeggs; Kevin D O'Brien Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-08-19