Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 712
- Dowloads 129
Original Research
Open AccessPrognostic Indicators for Anterior Mandibular Repositioning
in Adolescents with Class II Malocclusion: A Cross-Sectional
Cephalometric Study
Prognostic Indicators for Anterior Mandibular Repositioning in Adolescents with Class II Malocclusion: A Cross-Sectional Cephalometric Study
1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Wonkwang, Wonkwang Dental Research Institute, Iksan, Korea
2Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A. T. Still University, Mesa, AZ 85206 USA
3Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
4Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Wonkwang, Iksan, Korea
5Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea
6School of Big Data and Financial Statistics, University of Wonkwang, College of Natural Sciences, Iksan, Korea
*Corresponding Author(s): Jong-Moon Chae E-mail: jongmoon@wku.ac.kr
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the cephalometric changes following anterior repositioning of the mandible for predicting the treatment effects in Class II adolescent patients. Study Design: Lateral cephalograms of 28 patients (ANB > 4°) were taken in centric occlusion (CO) and edge-to-edge bite (EtoE) before orthodontic treatment. The patients were classified into two groups according to their mandibular plane angle [MPA; low MPA (LMPA) ≤ 28° and high MPA (HMPA) > 28°]. Cephalometric changes of hard and soft tissues were measured and analyzed with an x-y cranial base coordinate system. Results: For CO to EtoE, there were no significant cephalometric changes between HMPA and LMPA, but the horizontal ratio of soft to hard tissue pogonion (H-Pog′/H-Pog) change was significantly greater with LMPA than with HMPA while the vertical ratio (V-Pog′/V-Pog) showed vice versa. For CO to EtoE, MPA showed significant correlations with H-Pog′/H-Pog and V-Pog′/V-Pog. Y-axis angle, V-Pog′/V-Pog and H-Pog′/H-Pog can be used as good tools to discriminate between HMPA and LMPA. Conclusion: Cephalometric findings for CO to EtoE may be useful in predicting the vertical and horizontal changes of hard and soft tissues with the treatment of growing adolescents having various vertical skeletal patterns of Class II malocclusion.
Keywords
Class II adolescents; Centric occlusion; Edge-to-edge bite; Cephalometric changes; Mandibular plane angle
Cite and Share
Jong-Moon Chae,Jae Hyun Park,Seon-Hye Kim,Utkarsh Mangal,Hye Young Seo. Prognostic Indicators for Anterior Mandibular Repositioning in Adolescents with Class II Malocclusion: A Cross-Sectional Cephalometric Study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020. 44(4);274-282.
References
1. Sayin MO, Turkkahraman H. Cephalometric evaluation of nongrowing females with skeletal and dental Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 75:656-60, 2005.
2. Moyers RE, Riolo ML, Guire KE, Wainright RL, Bookstein FL. Differential diagnosis of Class II malocclusions: part I. Facial types associated with Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 78:477-94, 1980.
3. McNamara JA Jr. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod 51:177-202, 1981.
4. Baysal A, Uysal T. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 35:71-81, 2013.
5. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twinblock and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:594-602, 2006.
6. Mitchell L. An introduction to orthodontics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
7. Gill D, Sharma A, Naini F, Jones S. The Twin Block appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion. Dent Update 32:158-60, 163-4, 167-8, 2005.
8. Varlik SK, Gultan A, Tumer N. Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 30:128-34, 2008.
9. Buschang PH, Rolden SI, Tadlock LP. Guidelines for assessing the growth and development of orthodontic patients. Semin Orthod 23:321-35, 2017.
10. Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 9: functional appliances to midcentury. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129:829-33, 2006.
11. Hiyama S, Ono PT, Ishiwata Y, Kuroda T, McNamara JA Jr. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations following mandibular forward positioning induced by the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 70:442-53, 2000.
12. Rabie AB, Wong L, Tsai M. Replicating mesenchymal cells in the condyle and the glenoid fossa during mandibular forward positioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:49-57, 2003.
13. Rabie AB, Leung FY, Chayanupatkul A, Hägg U. The correlation between neovascularization and bone formation in the condyle during forward mandibular positioning. Angle Orthod 72:431-8, 2002.
14. Rabie AB, She TT, Hägg U. Functional appliance therapy accelerates and enhances condylar growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:40-8, 2003.
15. Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:62-72, 1998.
16. O’Brien K, Macfarlane T, Wright J et al. Early treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived improvements in facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:580-5, 2009.
17. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twinblock and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:594-602, 2006.
18. Owtad P, Park JH, Shen G, Potres Z, Darendeliler MA. The biology of TMJ growth modification: a review. J Dent Res 92:315-21, 2013.
19. Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 38:113-26, 2016.
20. Kim JE, Mah SJ, Kim TW, Kim SJ, Park KH, Kang YG. Predictors of favorable soft tissue profile outcomes following Class II Twin-block treatment. Korean J Orthod 48:11-22, 2018.
21. Denis KL1, Speidel TM. Comparison of three methods of profile change prediction in the adult orthodontic patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 92:396-402, 1987.
22. Lulla P, Gianelly AA. The mandibular plane and mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod 70:567-71, 1976.
23. Ahn JG, Schneider BJ. Cephalometric appraisal of posttreatment vertical changes in adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:378-84, 2000.
24. Katsavrias EG. Changes in articular eminence inclination during the craniofacial growth period. Angle Orthod 72:258-64, 2002.
25. Reicheneder C, Gedrange T, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Proff P. Variations in the inclination of the condylar path in children and adults. Angle Orthod 79:958-63, 2009.
26. Katsavrias EG. The effect of mandibular protrusive (activator) appliances on articular eminence morphology. Angle Orthod 73:647-53, 2003.
27. Merrifield LL. Differential Diagnosis. Semin Orthod 2:241-53, 1996.
28. Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:759-64, 2012.
29. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Mentolabial angle and aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 39:4, 2017.
30. Reddy PS, Kashyap B, Hallur N, Sikkerimath BC. Advancement genioplasty–cephalometric analysis of osseous and soft tissue changes. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 10:288-95, 2011.
31. R. Ricketts. A foundation for cephalometric communication. Am J Orthod 46:330-57, 1960.
32. Ogawa T, Koyano K, Suetsugu T. The influence of anterior guidance and condylar guidance on mandibular protrusive movement. J Oral Rehabil 24:303-9, 1997.
33. Amuk NG, Baysal A, Coskun R, Kurt G. Effectiveness of incremental vs maximum bite advancement during Herbst appliance therapy in late adolescent and young adult patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 155:48-56, 2019.
Abstracted / indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
Submission Turnaround Time
Conferences
Top