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.

Treatment Effects and Lip Profile Changes Following Surgical Mandibular Advancement Versus Premolar Extractions in Class II Div 1 Malocclusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: No randomized controlled trial has compared the treatment outcome between surgical mandibular advancement and premolar extractions in class II malocclusion. This 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial evaluated the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal class II adult patients subjected to bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement and those treated with premolar extractions. Seventy skeletal class II patients were accessed and forty-six subjects who fulfilled inclusion criteria were distributed randomly into Group CG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.28 ±â€Š2.69 years) and Group SG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.15 ±â€Š2.64 years). Group CG was subjected to extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars followed by implant supported space closure and Group SG was managed by surgical mandibular advancement. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed. The study was single-blinded (statistical analyzer). Groups were closely matched for baseline parameters. In the present trial there was no loss to follow-up. Though overjet and overbite were optimized in both the groups but significant improvement was seen in surgical cases. Group CG demonstrated statistically significant point "A" remodeling, dentoalveolar changes, and increase in nasolabial angle. Group SG exhibited significant sagittal and vertical skeletal improvement and lip position change. Surgical mandibular advancement was found to be a better treatment modality compared to premolars extraction for managing skeletal class II div 1 malocclusion as it permits greater improvement of the profile and skeletal relationship.

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.

Pharyngeal airway evaluation following isolated surgical mandibular advancement: A 1-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of pharyngeal airway space changes with the use of acoustic pharyngometry 1 year after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. METHODS: The sample comprised 16 patients (mean age 21.26 ± 1.86 years). Acoustic pharyngometry measurements were recorded 1 week before surgery (T0), 2 months after surgery (T1), and 1 year after surgery (T2). Parameters were compared by means of repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Significant increase was seen in minimum cross-sectional area 2 months after surgery (P < 0.001). Relapse of 12.6% was observed within 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). Statistically significant increase, ie, 31.5%, was seen in mean cross-sectional area 2 months after surgery (P < 0.001), which relapsed by 7.9% 1 year after surgery (P < 0. 0.001). Significant increase in mean volume from 30.32 ± 2.2 cm3 before surgery to 38.91 ± 2.73 cm3 2 months after surgery (P < 0.001) was observed. Mean volume relapsed 3.9% 1 year after surgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Changes in pharyngeal airway space dimensions in patients subjected to isolated surgical mandibular advancement on 1 year follow up showed encouraging results.

Management of Nonsyndromic Skeletal Dysgnathia by Distraction Osteogenesis Long-Term Follow-Up.

Distraction osteogenesis has been a paradigm shift in the field of orthognathic surgery. Majority of the published cases are those of syndromic patients that have been managed using varying treatment protocols. This communication describes a patient of 18-year-old male diagnosed with skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retognathism. The patient was taken up for mandibular corpus distraction of 10 mm. By this approach the patient was benefitted with good esthetic result and functional occlusion. Distraction protocol followed in this patient for lengthening of mandibular corpus has resulted in a stable outcome. The 2-year follow-up photographs show a stable result both esthetically and functionally.

Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

BACKGROUND: Increased upper lip procumbency is commonly associated with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion with the major goal of reducing maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. The treatment plan usually includes extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by retraction of anterior teeth with maximum anchorage. Dental implants have been widely accepted as successful adjuncts for obtaining maximum anchorage in orthodontic treatment. METHODS: 50 subjects between the ages of 13 and 17 years having bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups. Both groups received treatment with 0.022″ MBT prescription preadjusted edgewise appliance system. In addition, subjects of Group 'I' received the Nance button and lingual arch as anchorage reinforcement in the upper and lower arches, respectively. Subjects of Group 'II' received self-drilling titanium OI for anchorage reinforcement. RESULTS: Significant retraction was achieved in all cases with good vertical control. Anchor loss was observed in both groups. Anchor loss was much higher in Group I compared to Group II, and an intergroup comparison for anchor loss was highly significant. CONCLUSION: Implants as anchorage, for en masse retraction, can be incorporated into orthodontic practice. The use of orthodontic implants for anchorage is a viable alternative to conventional molar anchorage.

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.