Effects of long-term use of the lower lingual arch from 8.5 years to 13.2 years.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of long-term use of the lower lingual arch (LLA) on the sagittal and vertical positions of the permanent lower incisors and first molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 98 patients who were treated with an LLA (LLA group) and 39 patients who were treated without an LLA (no-LLA group). The positional changes of the lower incisors and first molars were analyzed after performing mandibular structural superimpositions on lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before treatment (T1) and at the end of LLA therapy (T2). The mean ages at T1 and T2 were 8.5 years and 13.2 years, respectively. Study casts were analyzed to quantify arch dimensional changes. RESULTS: Mesial movement of the lower molar cusp was similar between the LLA and no-LLA groups, but the vertical position was slightly greater at T2 in the LLA group. In the LLA group, there was a molar tip-back effect, and the lower incisors were proclined 4.2° more than in the no-LLA group. Arch perimeter decreased 3.6 ± 2.6 mm without an LLA and 0.97 ± 3.7 mm with an LLA. Intercanine and intermolar widths both increased about 1 mm more with an LLA (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The LLA does not seem to restrict mesial movement and vertical eruption of the lower incisors and molars in the long term. The LLA effectively preserves the arch perimeter at the expense of a slight lower incisor proclination.

A retrospective study of Class II mixed-dentition treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To consider the effectiveness of early treatment using one mixed-dentition approach to the correction of moderate and severe Class II malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of Class II subjects were included in this retrospective study: an early treatment (EarlyTx) group that first presented at age 7 to 9.5 years (n = 54), a late treatment (LateTx) group whose first orthodontic visit occurred between ages 12 and 15 (n = 58), and an untreated Class II (UnTx) group to assess the pretreatment comparability of the two treated groups (n = 51). Thirteen conventional cephalometric measurements were reported for each group and Class II molar severity was measured on the study casts of the EarlyTx and LateTx groups. RESULTS: Successful Class II correction was observed in approximately three quarters of both the EarlyTx group and the LateTx group at the end of treatment. EarlyTx patients had fewer permanent teeth extracted than did the LateTx patients (5.6% vs 37.9%, P < .001) and spent less time in full-bonded appliance therapy in the permanent dentition than did LateTx patients (1.7 ± 0.8 vs 2.6 ± 0.7years, P < .001). When supervision time is included, the EarlyTx group had longer total treatment time and averaged more visits than did the LateTx group (53.1 ± 18. 8 vs 33.7 ± 8.3, P < .0001). Fifty-five percent of the LateTx extraction cases involved removal of the maxillary first premolars only and were finished in a Class II molar relationship. CONCLUSION: EarlyTx comprehensive mixed-dentition treatment was an effective modality for early correction of Class II malocclusions.

Evaluation of posttreatment stability after orthodontic treatment in the mixed and permanent dentitions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate posttreatment changes in the maxillary and mandibular arches in patients who underwent orthodontic treatment during the mixed and permanent dentitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample was collected retrospectively from three private practices and consisted of 42 patients who were at least 10 years out of orthodontic treatment. The longitudinal records of study casts and cephalometric radiographs were analyzed to quantify posttreatment changes. RESULTS: Minimal changes in maxillary and mandibular irregularity occurred after an average of 16.98 years from completion of treatment. More than 10 years posttreatment, approximately 81% of the maxillary anterior teeth and 88% of the mandibular anterior teeth showed clinically acceptable incisor alignment (<3.5 mm). Mandibular fixed retainers greatly aided in maintaining the stability of the mandibular incisor alignment. However, posttreatment changes in maxillary incisor irregularity did not appear to be influenced by the presence of a mandibular fixed retainer. When compared with longitudinal changes observed in untreated subjects, the increase in incisor irregularity resembled a pattern similar to the regression line of untreated subjects and seems to be entirely age related. Arch width and arch depth was consistently decreased after treatment, but the magnitude of change was minimal at about 1 mm. No associations were found between any of the cephalometric measurements and changes in incisor irregularities. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic treatment stability can be achieved and mandibular fixed retention appears to be a valuable contributor, especially in patients with further growth expected.