Active vertical control with skeletal anchorage for optimizing facial profile in a severe Class II high-angle protrusion case.

This case report describes the nonsurgical management of a patient with a Class II skeletal pattern, retrognathic mandible, steep mandibular angle, maxillary vertical excess, and lip incompetence. The treatment approach involved orthodontic mechanics supported with skeletal anchorage to achieve maximal intrusion and retraction of the dentition. A novel elastic hanging rack appliance, supported by midpalatal miniscrews, was used. A maximal anchorage setup for active vertical control on both arches was illustrated. Significant improvement in the facial profile was achieved with optimal occlusion. Cephalometric analysis revealed successful incisor retraction and intrusion, as well as a forward rotation of the mandible. The treatment outcome illustrates the impact of active vertical control on orthodontic camouflage treatment for severe protrusion.

Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types.

Background: The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction. Methods: Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N (p = 0.02) while it decreased -0.23 ± 2.25° (p = 0.60); These changes were not significant between groups after treatment (p = 0.680). Most dentoskeletal measurements changed significantly within groups but none of them showed statistically significant differences between groups after treatment. Dental and soft tissue changes were in accordance with the biomechanics used for this Class II orthodontic therapy. Discussion: The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.