Does the composite attachment of clear aligners compromise the effectiveness of dental bleaching? An in vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dental bleaching with hydrogen peroxide 35% on the surface below the attachments. METHODS: Twenty-four blocks of bovine incisors were equally divided into 2 groups. The control group comprises the enamel surface free of attachments, whereas the attachment group comprises the enamel surface with attachment. Initial staining of samples was performed with black tea for 7 days; then, an attachment was made in the attachment group with Z250 resin and new staining for another 7 days in all samples. After staining, in-office bleaching was performed in both groups, and the attachments from the attachment group were removed. Color reading was performed with a spectrophotometer at all stages: initial (baseline), after 7 days of staining, after 14 days of staining, after immediate bleaching, and after 24 hours of bleaching. The color difference was calculated, and data analysis was performed using the t test for intergroup analysis. RESULTS: The results showed effective bleaching in both groups; however, there was a statistically significant difference in color change between them 24 hours after bleaching. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the presence of attachment did not impair the action of the bleaching agent on the tooth surface.

Finite element analysis of two skeletally anchored maxillary molar distalisation methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of maxillary molar distalisation with skeletal anchorage using finite element analysis (FEA). METHODS: Two digitised models were created: the miniscrew-anchored distaliser, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a buccal miniscrew between the first molar and second premolar (Model 1), and the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance, which consisted of a distalisation method anchored in a miniscrew on the anterior region of the palate (Model 2). FEA was used to simulate both methods, assessing teeth displacements and stress concentration. RESULTS: The miniscrew-anchored distaliser showed greater buccal than distal displacement of the first molar, while the opposite was observed in the miniscrew-anchored palatal appliance. The second molar responded similarly in the transverse and anteroposterior perspectives with both appliances. Greater displacements were observed at crown level than in apical regions. Greater stress concentration was observed at the buccal and cervical regions of the crown in the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and the palatal and cervical regions in the palatal appliance. The stress progressively spread in the buccal side of the alveolar bone for the miniscrew-anchored distaliser and in the palatal root and alveolar bone for the palatal appliance. CONCLUSION: FEA assumes that both appliances would promote maxillary molar distalisation. A skeletally anchored palatal distalisation force seems to provide a greater molar bodily movement with less undesirable effects. Greater stress is expected at the crown and cervical regions during distalisation, and the stress concentration in the roots and alveolar bone depends directly on the region the force was applied.

Stability of class II treatment with Pendulum and Jones jig followed by fixed appliances.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term stability of Class II correction with the Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed appliances. SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Group 1 comprised 20 Class II malocclusion patients with a mean initial age of 13.97 years (SD = 1.57), treated with Pendulum and fixed appliances for a mean period of 4.72 years (SD = 0.98), and mean long-term post-treatment evaluation of 4.72 years (SD = 0.97). Group 2 consisted of 18 Class II patients with a mean initial age of 13.19 years (SD = 1.26), treated with Jones jig and fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.96 years (SD = 0.92). Mean long-term post-treatment time was 5.50 years (SD = 1.57). METHODS: Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at three stages: initial (T1), final (T2) and long-term post-treatment (T3). Intragroup comparisons were performed with repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test and intergroup comparisons with independent t test. RESULTS: Many treatment changes were observed in both groups. From the long-term post-treatment periods, there was stability for most of the variables. Maxillary second molars and mandibular first molars extruded in the Jones jig group and slightly intruded in the Pendulum appliance group. The nasolabial angle decreased in the Pendulum group and increased in the Jones jig group. CONCLUSION: The correction of a Class II malocclusion was shown to be stable with similar long-term post-treatment results with Pendulum or Jones jig followed by fixed orthodontic appliances.

Intraoral distalizer effects with conventional and skeletal anchorage: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this meta-analysis were to quantify and to compare the amounts of distalization and anchorage loss of conventional and skeletal anchorage methods in the correction of Class II malocclusion with intraoral distalizers. METHODS: The literature was searched through 5 electronic databases, and inclusion criteria were applied. Articles that presented pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric values were preferred. Quality assessments of the studies were performed. The averages and standard deviations of molar and premolar effects were extracted from the studies to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 studies were included in the systematic review. After the quality analysis, 2 articles were classified as high quality, 27 as medium quality, and 11 as low quality. For the meta-analysis, 6 studies were included, and they showed average molar distalization amounts of 3.34 mm with conventional anchorage and 5.10 mm with skeletal anchorage. The meta-analysis of premolar movement showed estimates of combined effects of 2.30 mm (mesialization) in studies with conventional anchorage and -4.01 mm (distalization) in studies with skeletal anchorage. CONCLUSIONS: There was scientific evidence that both anchorage systems are effective for distalization; however, with skeletal anchorage, there was no anchorage loss when direct anchorage was used.

Effectiveness and predictability of treatment with clear orthodontic aligners: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In an ideal clinical setting, orthodontic therapy with clear aligners (CA) should improve the patients' initial malocclusion and must guarantee equivalence between the results predicted and those obtained clinically to be considered an effective treatment. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify the orthodontic literature concerning the effectiveness and predictability of CA treatments. METHODS: A systematic computerized search was performed in 3 databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Inclusion criteria selected observational and clinical studies performed in at least 10 adult orthodontic patients, whose results of CA treatment's effectiveness and/or predictability were assessed. RESULTS: The 3 database computerized searches resulted in 1,553 articles, and 169 full texts were considered potentially relevant. After applying the eligibility criteria, 33 studies were included. Most studies (76%) were designed as cohort studies and have been published in the last 5 years (79%). The majority included only non-extraction treatments (73%), and 79% reported results achieved with the Invisalign® system. The most predictable movement was the buccolingual tipping, while the least predictable movements were rotation, intrusion, and extrusion. Aligner treatment was effective for mild to moderate crowding resolution, and the success of overbite correction still seems to be limited. CONCLUSIONS: The studies have demonstrated improvement of initial malocclusion through CA treatments. Still, predictability degree is overestimated and does not accurately reflect the occlusion immediately at the end of treatment. In future studies, there should be an effort to broaden the utilization of alternative aligner systems beyond Invisalign® and broadly disseminate their outcomes to strengthen clear aligners evidence base.

Three-dimensional changes after maxillary molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored cantilever.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes after maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever with an extension arm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 20 patients (9 male, 11 female; mean age 13.21 ± 1.54 years) with Class II malocclusion, treated with the miniscrew-anchored cantilever. Lateral cephalograms and dental models obtained before (T1) and after molar distalization (T2) were evaluated using Dolphin software and 3D Slicer. Superimposition of digital dental models using regions of interest on the palate was performed to evaluate three-dimensional displacement of maxillary teeth. Intragroup change comparisons were performed using dependent t-test and Wilcoxon test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The maxillary first molars were distalized to overcorrected Class I. The mean distalization time was 0.43 ± 0.13 years. Cephalometric analysis demonstrated significant distal movement of the maxillary first premolar (-1.21 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.45, -1.96) and maxillary first (-3.38 mm, 95% CI: -2.88, -3.87) and second molars (-2.12 mm, 95% CI: -1.53, -2.71). Distal movements increased progressively from the incisors to the molars. The first molar showed small intrusion (-0.72 mm, 95% CI: 0.49, -1.34). In the digital model analysis, the first and second molars showed a crown distal rotation of 19.31° ± 5.71° and 10.17° ± 3.84°, respectively. The increase in maxillary intermolar distance, evaluated at the mesiobuccal cusps, was 2.63 ± 1.56 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was effective for maxillary molar distalization. Sagittal, lateral, and vertical movements were observed for all maxillary teeth. Distal movement was progressively greater from anterior to posterior teeth.

Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class.

BACKGROUND: To compare the maxillary dentoalveolar changes of patients treated with three distalization force systems: Jones Jig, Distal Jet and First Class appliances, using digitized models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective sample comprised 118 digitized models of 59 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into three groups: Group 1 consisted of 22 patients treated with the Jones Jig appliance; Group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet, and Group 3 comprised 17 patients treated with the First Class appliance. Pretreatment and post-distalization plaster models of all patients were digitized and evaluated with OrthoAnalyzerTM software. The pretreatment and post-distalization variables regarding sagittal, rotational and transverse changes were compared by the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on normality. RESULTS: All appliances presented similar amounts of distalization. The Distal Jet appliance promoted significantly smaller mesial displacement of premolars and greater expansion of posterior teeth. The First Class presented the smallest rotation of the maxillary molars and treatment time. CONCLUSIONS: The distalizers were effective in correcting Class II molar relationship, however, a palatal force seems to provide fewer undesirable effects. Additionally, the degree of rotation and expansion was associated with the side of force application. Key words:Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Orthodontics, Corrective, Distalizers.

Teeth angulations after class II treatment with the Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective panoramic analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the maxillary mesiodistal dental angulations of Class II malocclusion patients treated with the Jones Jig, followed by fixed appliances, with normal values of a historical control group, on panoramic radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 80 panoramic radiographs of 40 patients divided into two groups. Eligibility criteria included patients with predominantly dental Class II malocclusion; the presence of all teeth up to the second molars and no previous orthodontic treatment. The experimental group was composed of 60 radiographs of 20 patients treated with the Jones Jig distalizer followed by fixed appliances. The radiographs were taken at pre-treatment (T0), post-distalization (T1), and post-treatment (T2). The historical control group comprised 20 radiographs of 20 subjects with untreated normal occlusion. The mesiodistal axial angulations of all maxillary erupted teeth were evaluated with the Dolphin Imaging software. Intragroup comparisons in the experimental group were performed with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey tests. The experimental group at T2 versus the control group were compared with t tests. RESULTS: After distalization, significant distal angulation of the molars (110.58°±8.54, P<0.000) and mesial angulation of the second (86.43°±8.08, P<0.000) and first premolars (80.11°±8.01, P<0.000) was observed. However, this was corrected after comprehensive fixed orthodontics (100.54°±6.53; 98.95°±7.00; 94.92°±6.44; P<0.000, for these teeth, respectively). Intergroup comparisons resulted in first molars, premolars, canines, and central incisors significantly more distally angulated in the experimental group, when compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: In general, at the end of orthodontic treatment, patients treated with the Jones Jig distalizer followed by fixed appliances presented more distally angulated maxillary teeth when compared to an untreated group with normal occlusion.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances.

Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes of patients with Class II malocclusion treated with cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances, followed by fixed appliances. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample comprised 46 Class II malocclusion patients divided into two groups. Patients with Class II malocclusion based on the ANB angle and plaster model analyses, needing non-extraction orthodontic treatment, absence of mandibular crowding and no previous orthodontic treatment were eligible to be selected. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with cervical headgear (CH) followed by fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.26 years and group 2 consisted of 21 patients treated with the Jones Jig (JJ) appliance for a mean of 4.29 years. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, t and Mann-Whitney tests were performed. RESULTS: The cervical headgear group produced significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction (SNA; CH: -0.97°±1.33; JJ: 0.07°±1.73; P=0.025), apical base discrepancy improvement (ANB; CH: -1.52°±1.25; JJ: 0.36°±1.46; P=0.006), FMA reduction (CH: -0.78°±2.68; JJ: 1.07°±2.84; P=0.028) and distal mandibular molar angulation (Md6.PM; CH: 6.97°±3.66; JJ: 2.77°±6.87; P=0.013) than the Jones Jig group. CONCLUSIONS: Both distalizers followed by fixed appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. The cervical headgear group presented skeletal effects with less treatment time and there were no significant intergroup differences regarding soft tissue changes.

Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we compared the dentoalveolar changes of Class II patients treated with Jones jig and pendulum appliances. METHODS: The experimental group comprised 40 Class II malocclusion subjects, divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 20 patients (11 boys, 9 girls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.17 years, treated with the Jones jig appliance for 0.91 years; group 2 comprised 20 patients (8 boys, 12 girls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.98 years, treated with the pendulum appliance for 1.18 years. Only active treatment time of molar distalization was evaluated in the predistalization and postdistalization lateral cephalograms. Molar, second premolar, and incisor angular and linear variables were obtained. The intergroup treatment changes in these variables were compared with independent t tests. RESULTS: The maxillary second premolars showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group, indicating more anchorage loss during molar distalization with this appliance. The amounts and the monthly rates of molar distalization were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Jones jig group showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion of the maxillary second premolars. The mean amounts and the monthly rates of first molar distalization were similar in both groups.

Class II malocclusion treatment effects with Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes in Class II malocclusion patients treated with Jones Jig and Distal Jet distalizers followed by fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental groups comprised 45 Class II malocclusion subjects divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jones Jig, and group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet. Group 3 comprised 19 untreated Class II subjects. Cephalograms were analyzed before and after orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were performed. RESULTS: During treatment, the experimental groups exhibited significant increases in occlusal plane inclination and maxillary second molar mesial tipping. Additionally, the molar relationship improved and overjet decreased significantly in the experimental groups. The Jones Jig group showed greater mandibular incisor proclination and greater overbite reduction than the control group. No significant intergroup differences in nasolabial angle changes were found. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment protocols using the Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion by means of dentoalveolar changes without significant skeletal and soft tissue changes. The experimental groups showed occlusal plane clockwise rotation and greater mesial tipping of maxillary second molars when compared to the untreated group.

Treatment of a Class II Malocclusion with Deep Overbite in an Adult Patient Using Intermaxillary Elastics and Spee Curve Controlling with Reverse and Accentuated Archwires.

This paper aimed to describe the orthodontic treatment of an adult patient with the following characteristics: asymmetric Class II malocclusion, left subdivision, mandibular midline shifted to the left, mild mandibular anterior crowding, excessive overbite, 4-mm overjet, and a brachycephalic facial pattern. A 31-year-old male patient, treated with fixed preadjusted appliance with Roth prescription, with leveling and alignment NiTi archwire sequence. To correct the asymmetric Class II malocclusion, midline shift as well the overjet and overbite, intermaxillary elastics and accentuated and reversed stainless steel archwires were used, respectively. The posttreatment results showed a Class I molar relationship, as well the overjet and overbite correction. These results could be achieved due to a correct treatment plan and so to the patient cooperation.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances

Abstract Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

Cephalometric effects of the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to cephalometrically assess the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Class II malocclusion treatment performed with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances. METHODS: The sample comprised 25 patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances, at a mean initial age of 12.90 years old. The mean time of the entire orthodontic treatment was 3.89 years. The distalization phase lasted for 0.85 years, after which the fixed appliance was used for 3.04 years. Cephalograms were used at initial (T1), post-distalization (T2) and final phases of treatment (T3). For intragroup comparison of the three phases evaluated, dependent ANOVA and Tukey tests were used. RESULTS: Jones Jig appliance did not interfere in the maxillary and mandibular component and did not change maxillomandibular relationship. Jones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss, mesialization and significant extrusion of first and second premolars, as well as a significant increase in anterior face height at the end of treatment. The majority of adverse effects that occur during intraoral distalization are subsequently corrected during corrective mechanics. Buccal inclination and protrusion of mandibular incisors were identified. By the end of treatment, correction of overjet and overbite was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Jones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss represented by significant mesial movement and extrusion of first and second premolars, in addition to a significant increase in anterior face height.

Bone tissue amount related to upper incisors inclination.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of buccal and lingual supporting bone tissue of 60 upper central incisors and the relationship with their inclination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy adult patients with no previous orthodontic treatment were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Cross-sectional views were analyzed to check the amount of the bone tissue on the cervical (cervical buccal thickness/CBT; lingual/CLT), middle (middle buccal thickness/MBT; lingual/MLT), and apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; lingual/ALT). The Pearson correlation, linear regression, and analysis of variance tests were used (P < .05). RESULTS: The values of ABT of both teeth (11, right upper central incisor; 21, left upper central incisor) were significantly increased with the increase in the angle between the axis of the upper central incisor and the palatal plane (1/PP) (tooth 11 P  =  .034; tooth 21 P  =  .009), yet without a strong linear correlation. At the buccal and lingual surfaces, the mean apical supporting bone tissue was significantly greater than the other areas, and the middle region significantly greater than the cervical (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For both surfaces (buccal and lingual), the amount of bone tissue in the apical region was significantly higher than the middle and cervical regions, and the middle region was significantly higher than the cervical region. In relation to the upper central incisor's inclination, the higher the 1/PP the higher was ABT. However, the coefficient values for both teeth were low.

Comparative cephalometric study of Class II malocclusion treatment with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances followed by fixed corrective orthodontics.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to cephalometrically compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances, followed by fixed corrective orthodontics, and to compare such effects to a control group. METHODS: The sample was divided into three groups. Group 1: 18 patients treated with Pendulum, Group 2: 25 patients treated with Jones jig, and Group 3: 19 young subjects with untreated Class II malocclusions and initial mean age of 12.88 years. The chi-square test was applied to assess severity and gender distribution. Groups 1 and 2 were compared to the control group by means of the one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests in order to differentiate treatment changes from those occurred by craniofacial growth. RESULTS: There were no significant changes among the three groups with regard to the components of the maxilla and the mandible, maxillomandibular relationship, cephalometric and tegumental pattern. Buccal tipping of mandibular incisors was significantly greater in the experimental groups and increased mesial angulation of the maxillary second molars was found in the Jones jig group. In the experimental groups, dental relationship, overbite and overjet were corrected. CONCLUSIONS: It can be stated that the distalization achieved its purpose of correcting the Class II.

Comparative analysis of the anterior and posterior length and deflection angle of the cranial base, in individuals with facial Pattern I, II and III.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the variations in the anterior cranial base (S-N), posterior cranial base (S-Ba) and deflection of the cranial base (SNBa) among three different facial patterns (Pattern I, II and III). METHOD: A sample of 60 lateral cephalometric radiographs of Brazilian Caucasian patients, both genders, between 8 and 17 years of age was selected. The sample was divided into 3 groups (Pattern I, II and III) of 20 individuals each. The inclusion criteria for each group were the ANB angle, Wits appraisal and the facial profile angle (G'.Sn.Pg'). To compare the mean values obtained from (SNBa, S-N, S-Ba) each group measures, the ANOVA test and Scheffé's Post-Hoc test were applied. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference for the deflection angle of the cranial base among the different facial patterns (Patterns I, II and III). There was no significant difference for the measures of the anterior and posterior cranial base between the facial Patterns I and II. The mean values for S-Ba were lower in facial Pattern III with statistically significant difference. The mean values of S-N in the facial Pattern III were also reduced, but without showing statistically significant difference. This trend of lower values in the cranial base measurements would explain the maxillary deficiency and/or mandibular prognathism features that characterize the facial Pattern III.