Outcomes of early versus late treatment of severe Class II high-angle patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work was to compare the skeletal and dental outcomes of 1- versus 2-phase treatment in Class II subjects with difficult-to-treat high-angle severe Class II malocclusions. METHODS: The sample of 120 cases was collected from the private offices of 3 experienced clinicians. The following selection criteria were used: (1) ANB ≥6°, (2) SN-GoGn ≥37° or mandibular plane to Frankfort horizontal plane ≥30°; and (3) overjet ≥6 mm. Patients were classified into either the early or the late treatment group according to dental age (early Tx: ≥5 primary teeth; late Tx: otherwise). Thirty-four angular, linear, and proportional measurements were determined for each patient. Statistical significance was assessed with the use of a 2-tailed t test, analysis of covariance test, and chi-square test. RESULTS: The results showed that early 2-phase treatment for severe Class II high-angle patients offered no skeletal anteroposterior advantages over late 1-phase treatment. Severe high-angle Class II patients also showed similar dental anteroposterior outcomes with the use of both approaches. Vertically there was a higher frequency of increased mandibular plane angles and extrusion of upper incisors and lower molars in the late treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Early 2-phase treatment for severe Class II high-angle patients offered no skeletal or dental advantage over late 1-phase treatment.

Long-term stability of anterior open-bite closure with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Maxillary impaction and bimaxillary osteotomies are used to treat anterior open-bite malocclusions but can have adverse soft-tissue effects. Correcting an anterior open bite with a single mandibular procedure avoids these undesirable soft-tissue effects, but the stability of this procedure is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term stability of anterior open-bite correction with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and rigid internal fixation. METHODS: Orthognathic surgical records of 1 oral surgeon were searched for all patients treated for anterior open bite with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and surgical closing rotation of the mandible with rigid internal fixation. Cephalometric films from initial consultation, presurgery, postsurgery, orthodontic appliance removal, and a mean of 4.5 years after orthodontic appliance removal were collected, traced, and measured. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients fit the inclusion criteria for this study and had an initial mean open bite of -2.6 mm (SD, 1.1 mm). The patients experienced an average mandibular closing rotation of 3.7° (SD, 2.4°) with surgery. By orthodontic appliance removal, the mandible rotated open 1.1°, and incisor overlap was 1.4 mm (SD, 1.0 mm). Approximately 4.5 years after orthodontic appliance removal, the mean incisor overlap was maintained at 1.0 mm (SD, 1.0 mm), yet the mandible rotated open an additional 1.1°. Only 3 patients relapsed to no incisor overlap in the long term, and only 3 patients experienced relapse greater than 1 mm in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 90% of the treated patients had a positive incisor overlap 4.5 years after orthodontic appliance removal. Despite a 60% loss of mandibular surgical closing rotation, only 10% of the patients relapsed to no incisor overlap in the long term. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and surgical closing rotation of the mandible by using rigid internal fixation should be considered a stable alternative in the treatment of mild-to-moderate anterior open-bite malocclusions.

Orthodontic treatment of anterior open-bite malocclusion: stability 10 years postretention.

INTRODUCTION: The postretention stability of open-bite treatment is a controversial topic in orthodontics. METHODS: In this study, the lateral cephalometric radiographs of 64 patients treated with orthodontics alone were evaluated to determine the amount of postretention change. The mean postretention interval was 14 years. The sample was divided into 3 groups based on the amounts of pretreatment overbite: (1) the contact group (n = 24), incisal overlap and incisal contact; (2) the overlap group (n = 25), incisal overlap and no incisal contact; and (3) the open-bite group (n = 15), no incisal overlap. The headfilms were digitized, and the values were analyzed. RESULTS: The 3 groups reacted differently. During the postretention period, mean overbite deepened in all groups, with the contact group deepening significantly more than the open-bite group. Overjet increased significantly more in the open-bite group than in the contact group. Pretreatment overjet correlated mildly with postretention overjet relapse in the open-bite group. CONCLUSIONS: All 64 subjects had positive incisal overlap at the postretention recall.

Treatment response and stability of slow maxillary expansion using Haas, hyrax, and quad-helix appliances: a retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: In this retrospective study, we evaluated the short- and long-term effects of slow maxillary expansion with Haas, hyrax, and quad-helix appliances on posterior crossbite (PXB) correction stability, and maxillary intermolar width and angulation, in the deciduous or early mixed dentition. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were models and treatment notes of patients with PXB at the start of treatment (T1), after PXB correction (T2), and at least 2 years posttreatment (T3). Exclusion criteria were craniofacial anomalies, fixed appliance use, or more than 1 expander type. From 312 consecutive expansion patients, 74 Haas, 41 hyrax, and 45 quad-helix subjects were evaluated regarding PXB correction, intermolar width, and angulation and compared with published norms to separate treatment effects from growth. The mean ages at T1, T2, and T3 were 8, 9, and 13 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in PXB correction stability or treatment response at T2 and T3 among the 3 expanders. Expansion increased intermolar width by 5 mm and tipped each molar by 2.3 degrees. At least 2 years after expander removal, molar width decreased by 1.3 mm, and the molars uprighted by 6 degrees. Compared with noncrossbite norms, PXB subjects had narrower intermolar width before treatment and greater width after expansion, and were slightly wider at least 2 years posttreatment. Both younger age at T1 and retainer use resulted in statistically greater intermolar width at T3. CONCLUSIONS: Eighty-four percent of PXB correction remained with about one third of the initial expansion lost; retainer use and early treatment provided increased intermolar width. Haas, hyrax, and quad-helix appliances were equally effective. Slow maxillary expansion altered the PXB patients' maxillary widths from narrower to slightly wider than the widths of the noncrossbite norms.