Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients
- 1 March 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation) in Angle Orthodontist
- Vol. 82 (2), 294-303
- https://doi.org/10.2319/042811-302.1
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Occlusal stability of adult Class II Division 1 treatment with the Herbst applianceAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2010
- Long-Term Dentoskeletal Changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA Functional AppliancesAngle Orthodontist, 2010
- Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: A randomized controlled trialAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2008
- A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance therapyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2004
- Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandibleEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 2002
- A comparative study of sagittal correction with the Herbst appliance in two different ethnic groupsEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1997
- Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, Division 1 cases treated with and without extractionsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1995
- Treatment of Class II malocclusions with removable appliances. Part 4. Class II division 2 treatmentBritish Dental Journal, 1990
- Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolarsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1989
- Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatmentEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1987