Guilherme Janson1, Ana Niederberger2, Daniela Gamba Garib3, Waleska Caldas2. 1. Professor and head, Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: jansong@travelnet.com.br. 2. Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this investigation was to compare the amount of apical root resorption in nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with and without Class II elastics. METHODS: A sample of 54 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, retrospectively selected, was divided into 2 groups. The elastic group consisted of 27 patients who were exclusively treated with fixed appliances associated with elastics, and the headgear group consisted of 27 patients treated with fixed appliances and extraoral headgear. The groups were matched regarding initial age, treatment time, amount of overjet, initial malocclusion severity, final occlusal status, and severity of Class II molar relationship. Posttreatment periapical radiographs of the maxillary and mandibular central and lateral incisors were used to evaluate root resorption. The amounts of resorption in the groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the amounts of root resorption between the elastic and the headgear groups. CONCLUSION: Nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with Class II elastics associated with fixed appliances causes similar root resorption as treatment with extraoral headgear and fixed appliances. Apical root resorption was predominantly mild and similar in the 2 groups.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this investigation was to compare the amount of apical root resorption in nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with and without Class II elastics. METHODS: A sample of 54 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, retrospectively selected, was divided into 2 groups. The elastic group consisted of 27 patients who were exclusively treated with fixed appliances associated with elastics, and the headgear group consisted of 27 patients treated with fixed appliances and extraoral headgear. The groups were matched regarding initial age, treatment time, amount of overjet, initial malocclusion severity, final occlusal status, and severity of Class II molar relationship. Posttreatment periapical radiographs of the maxillary and mandibular central and lateral incisors were used to evaluate root resorption. The amounts of resorption in the groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the amounts of root resorption between the elastic and the headgear groups. CONCLUSION: Nonextraction treatment of Class II malocclusions with Class II elastics associated with fixed appliances causes similar root resorption as treatment with extraoral headgear and fixed appliances. Apical root resorption was predominantly mild and similar in the 2 groups.