Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal Class II patients subjected to premolars extraction treatment versus fixed functional treatment. METHODS: Forty six subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomly distributed into Group PE (mean age 13.03±1.78 years) and Group FF (mean age 12.80±1.67 years) (n=23 each). Group PE was managed by therapeutic extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars, followed by mini-implant-supported space closure; and Group FF, by fixed functional appliance therapy. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed using pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Data obtained from this open label study was subjected to blind statistical analysis. RESULTS: Extraction treatment resulted in greater increase of nasolabial angle (NLA: 3.1 [95% CI 2.08, 4.19], p<0.001), significant improvement of upper lip (UL-E line: -2.91 [95% CI -3.54, -2.28], p<0.001, UL-S line: -2.50 [95% CI -2.76, -2.24], p<0.001, UL-SnPog': -2.32 [95% CI -2.90, -1.74], p<0.01) and lower lip position (LL-E line: -0.68 [95% CI -1.36, 0.00], p<0.01, LL-S line: -0.55 [95% CI -1.11, 0.02], p<0.01, and LL-SnPog': -0.64 [95% CI -1.20, -0.07], p<0.01), lip thickness (UL thickness: 2.27 [95% CI 1.79, 2.75], p<0.001; LL thickness: 0.41 [95% CI -0.16, 0.97], p<0.01), upper lip strain (UL strain: -2.68 [95% CI -3.32, -2.04], p<0.001) and soft tissue profile (N'-Sn-Pog': 2.68 [95% CI 1.87, 3.50], p<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible, growth pattern, overjet, overbite, interincisal angle and soft tissue chin position (p>0.05). Premolar extraction treatment demonstrated significant intrusion-retraction of maxillary incisors, better maintenance of maxillary incisor inclination, and significant mandibular molar protraction; whereas functional treatment resulted in retrusive and intrusive effect on maxillary molars, marked proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, and significant extrusion of mandibular molars. Both treatment modalities had similar treatment duration. Implant failure was seen in 7.9% of cases, whereas failure of fixed functional appliance was observed in 9.09% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Premolar extraction therapy is a better treatment modality, compared to fixed functional appliance therapy for Class II patients with moderate skeletal discrepancy, increased overjet, protruded maxillary incisors and protruded lips, as it produces better dentoalveolar response and permits greater improvement of the soft tissue profile and lip relationship.

Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal Class II patients subjected to premolars extraction treatment versus fixed functional treatment. Methods: Forty six subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomly distributed into Group PE (mean age 13.03±1.78 years) and Group FF (mean age 12.80±1.67 years) (n=23 each). Group PE was managed by therapeutic extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars, followed by mini-implant-supported space closure; and Group FF, by fixed functional appliance therapy. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed using pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Data obtained from this open label study was subjected to blind statistical analysis. Results: Extraction treatment resulted in greater increase of nasolabial angle (NLA: 3.1 [95% CI 2.08, 4.19], p<0.001), significant improvement of upper lip (UL-E line: -2.91 [95% CI -3.54, -2.28], p<0.001, UL-S line: -2.50 [95% CI -2.76, -2.24], p<0.001, UL-SnPog': -2.32 [95% CI -2.90, -1.74], p<0.01) and lower lip position (LL-E line: -0.68 [95% CI -1.36, 0.00], p<0.01, LL-S line: -0.55 [95% CI -1.11, 0.02], p<0.01, and LL-SnPog': -0.64 [95% CI -1.20, -0.07], p<0.01), lip thickness (UL thickness: 2.27 [95% CI 1.79, 2.75], p<0.001; LL thickness: 0.41 [95% CI -0.16, 0.97], p<0.01), upper lip strain (UL strain: -2.68 [95% CI -3.32, -2.04], p<0.001) and soft tissue profile (N'-Sn-Pog': 2.68 [95% CI 1.87, 3.50], p<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible, growth pattern, overjet, overbite, interincisal angle and soft tissue chin position (p>0.05). Premolar extraction treatment demonstrated significant intrusion-retraction of maxillary incisors, better maintenance of maxillary incisor inclination, and significant mandibular molar protraction; whereas functional treatment resulted in retrusive and intrusive effect on maxillary molars, marked proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, and significant extrusion of mandibular molars. Both treatment modalities had similar treatment duration. Implant failure was seen in 7.9% of cases, whereas failure of fixed functional appliance was observed in 9.09% of cases. Conclusions: Premolar extraction therapy is a better treatment modality, compared to fixed functional appliance therapy for Class II patients with moderate skeletal discrepancy, increased overjet, protruded maxillary incisors and protruded lips, as it produces better dentoalveolar response and permits greater improvement of the soft tissue profile and lip relationship.

RESUMO Objetivo: O objetivo desse estudo randomizado controlado paralelo de dois braços foi avaliar os efeitos do tratamento e as mudanças no perfil labial em pacientes esqueléticos Classe II submetidos a tratamento com extração de pré-molares (EP) versus tratamento funcional fixo (FF). Métodos: Quarenta e seis indivíduos que preencheram os critérios de inclusão foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em Grupo EP (idade média 13,03±1,78 anos) e Grupo FF (idade média 12,80±1,67 anos) (n=23 cada). O grupo EP foi tratado com extração dos primeiros pré-molares superiores e segundos pré-molares inferiores, seguida de fechamento do espaço com ancoragem em mini-implantes; e o Grupo FF, com tratamento usando aparelhos funcionais fixos. As alterações esqueléticas, dentárias e de tecidos moles foram analisadas usando cefalogramas laterais pré e pós-tratamento. Os dados obtidos desse estudo aberto foram submetidos a análise estatística cega. Resultados: O tratamento com extrações resultou em maior aumento do ângulo nasolabial (ANL: 3,1 [IC 95% 2,08, 4,19], p<0,001), melhora significativa do lábio superior (Ls-Linha E: -2,91 [IC 95% -3,54, -2,28], p<0,001, Ls-Linha S: -2,50 [IC 95% -2,76, -2,24], p<0,001, Ls-SnPog': -2,32 [IC 95% -2,90, -1,74], p<0,01) e posição do lábio inferior (Li-Linha E: -0,68 [IC 95% -1,36, 0,00], p<0,01, Li-Linha S: -0,55 [IC 95% -1,11, 0,02], p<0,01, e Li-SnPog': -0,64 [IC 95% -1,20, -0,07], p<0,01), espessura dos lábios (espessura Ls: 2,27 [IC 95% 1,79, 2,75], p<0,001; espessura Li: 0,41 [IC 95% -0,16, 0,97], p<0,01), tensão do lábio superior (tensão Ls: -2,68 [IC 95% -3,32, -2,04], p<0,001) e perfil de tecidos moles (N'-Sn-Pog': 2,68 [IC 95% 1,87, 3,50], p<0,01). Nenhuma diferença significativa foi observada entre os grupos quanto às alterações esqueléticas na maxila e mandíbula, padrão de crescimento, sobressaliência, sobremordida, ângulo interincisal e posição dos tecidos moles do mento (p>0,05). O tratamento com extração de pré-molares demonstrou significativa intrusão-retração dos incisivos superiores, melhor manutenção da inclinação dos incisivos superiores e protração significativa dos molares inferiores; enquanto o tratamento funcional resultou em efeito retrusivo e intrusivo nos molares superiores, proclinação acentuada dos dentes anteriores inferiores e extrusão significativa dos molares inferiores. Ambas as modalidades de tratamento tiveram duração de tratamento semelhante. A falha do mini-implante foi observada em 7,9% dos casos, enquanto a falha do aparelho funcional fixo foi observada em 9,09% dos casos. Conclusões: O tratamento com extração de pré-molares é uma modalidade de tratamento melhor do que os aparelhos funcionais fixos para pacientes Classe II com discrepância esquelética moderada, sobressaliência aumentada, incisivos superiores protruídos e lábios protruídos, pois produz melhor resposta dentoalveolar e permite maior melhora do perfil dos tecidos moles e relacionamento labial.

Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances : A novel technique.

AIM: To evaluate the treatment effects in growing skeletal class II patients subjected to a novel treatment technique, i.e., bimaxillary miniplates supported fixed functional appliance. The null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in skeletal changes of patients with class II malocclusion treated with bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliance and those who were not provided any intervention. METHODS: The sample comprised 32 skeletal class II subjects (17 males and 15 females) with a Cervical Vertebrae Maturity Index (CVMI) demonstrating peak of pubertal growth spurt. Sixteen patients (12.37 ±1.09 years of age) were treated with bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed function appliance, while 16 well-matched subjects (12.06 ± 1.34 years of age) were included as controls. For both groups, cephalograms (T1, T2) were taken with a matched observational interval of about 7.5 months; 17 linear and 10 angular measurements were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine reliability of measurements recorded. Student t test was carried out to determine the changes produced by the treatment relative to control. RESULTS: When compared with the control group, the treatment group demonstrated significant maxillary retrusion. No significant changes were seen in mandibular growth pattern, whereas mandibular length increased significantly more than in the control group (B-VP: 3.05 mm; Co-Gn: 2.65 mm). Treatment mechanics had minimal effects on maxillary dentition. Mandibular incisors proclined by an average of 3.06°. Maxilla-mandibular relation improved significantly (ANB: -4.29°; NA-Pog: -3.76°). CONCLUSION: The new bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliance technique was found to be highly effective in the treatment of class II malocclusion with significant skeletal changes.

MRI Changes in the Temporomandibular Joint after Mandibular Advancement.

PURPOSE: Esthetic dental and skeletal component correction can affect the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Arthrogenic TMJ dysfunction can be present in the joint at the outset or it can develop during the treatment or later. The aim of the present study was to examine the changes found on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of the TMJ in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion who had undergone combined orthodontic and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) advancement. Our objective was to measure the changes in the disc position, condylar translation, secondary bony changes, and joint effusion on MRI before and after treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analytical, single-surgeon, single-institution, retrospective radiological (MRI) study was designed. We included patients who had undergone combined orthodontic and BSSRO advancement from 2011 to 2018. All 36 patients were examined using a 1.5-Tesla MRI unit (Siemens Symphony, Erlangen, Germany) with a 6 × 8-cm diameter surface coil, which allowed for simultaneous imaging of both TMJs. RESULTS: Analysis using the Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed statistically significant differences in the pre- and post-treatment groups in the changes in the position of the disc from anterior disc displacement with reduction (ADDWR) to the normal position (P = .008), condylar translation from excessive to normal (P = .046), and an increase in secondary bony changes (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Combined orthodontic and orthognathic movement in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion can increase secondary bony changes, improve the disc position in ADDWR cases, and control excessive translation of the TMJ. No improvement was noted in the position of the disc in those with anterior disc displacement without reduction, hypomobility and joint effusion.

Management of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion by Surgery-First Approach.

Surgery-first approach (SFA) has been a paradigm shift in the field of orthognathic surgery. Majority of the published cases that have been managed by this approach are of skeletal class III. This communication describes a patient of 18-year-old male diagnosed with skeletal class II malocclusion due to mandibular retognathism. He was managed with SFA and was using skeletal anchorage system to prevent postsurgical relapse. Bilateral saggital split ramus osteotomy was carried out to achieve the mandibular advancement of 7 mm. Using this approach good esthetic result, functional occlusion was achieved. Patients were benefited with marked improvement in profile at a very early stage of treatment and shorter total treatment time of about 7 months.

Interdisciplinary Management of Patient with Advanced Periodontal Disease.

This case report describes the interdisciplinary management of an adult patient with advanced periodontal disease. Treatment involved orthodontic and periodontal management. Good esthetic results and dental relationships were achieved by the treatment.

Management of Tooth Size Arch Size Discrepancy (TSASD) in Patients with Sleep Disorder Breathing.

This case report describes the interdisciplinary management of an adult patient with sleep disorder breathing i.e. snoring. Treatment involved combined ortho-surgical management. Marked improvement in general health, good esthetic results, and dental relationships were achieved by the treatment.