View clinical trials related to Malocclusion, Angle Class II.
Filter by:The present day social setup considers facial charisma as an important physical characteristic. The facial characteristics of an individual are measured through anthropometry, photogrammetry, computer imaging and cephalometric radiographs. Cephalometric radiographs offer significant diagnostic information regarding the association between the dental and skeletal structures. By means of photogrammetric measurements, a fresh diagnostic resource is accessible to the orthodontist which permits an intangible, radiation free attainment of measure points of soft tissue with no instrumental expense and radiation to the patient. Orthodontic patients range from adolescents to senior citizens and originate from an assortment of populations, thus an extensive series of representative norms will be ideal. Knowledge of the normal dentofacial outline of every group will make certain better success of treatment to set up the best possible facial agreement. Hence, it is extremely important to assess the soft tissue profile of a patient as it is one of the most vital components of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the photographic characteristics of soft tissue facial profile of patients with class II malocclusion as ethnic differences have been found to be reported in the literature. It is hypothesized that soft tissue facial characteristics on lateral profile photographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs in a sample of local population with class II malocclusion are closely related.
The current trial was designed to investigate the possible initial net skeletal and dental effects of treatment with FLMGM by a comparative evaluation of treated and untreated Cl II/1 malocclusion subjects. The null hypothesis stated that there were no significant differences in dentofacial changes between FLMGM group and control group.
Class II malocclusion (mismatch between the upper and lower jaw in which the lower jaw appears to be smaller from a profile point of view) are common in the general population. Around 1/3 of the population have some degree of this skeletal/dental problem and it is one frequent reason why patients decide to undergo orthodontic treatment. Treatment alternatives will basically depend on the facial skeletal development of the patient and also on the magnitude of the skeletal/dental discrepancy. For patients that are not yet fully skeletal mature, the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusion involves a combination of a small skeletal growth modification effect and more significant dental movements. For skeletal mature individuals with a severe mismatch, the treatment usually involves jaw surgery to fully correct the malocclusion. For less severe cases orthodontic camouflage exclusively done by orthodontic movements is an option. If the case is not severe enough to warrant a surgical approach there are several treatment alternatives. One of the most commonly used options is the use of orthodontic loaded springs that apply forces through brackets and arch wires bonded into the teeth so that the teeth will interrelate better. A different alternative was proposed some years ago. The Xbow (spelled Crossbow) appliance differs from the above-proposed option in that no brackets are bonded or arch wires used. The orthodontic springs are applied to a metal framework cemented on some upper and lower teeth. Once the skeletal/dental problem is believed to have been significantly improved, fine tuning of the remaining dental problems is managed with brackets and arch wires. The theoretical advantage of such a design is that adverse effects, such as root resorption and decalcification from the long-term use of brackets and arch wires, are theoretically minimized as the brackets and arch wires have to be used for a shorter period of time. Although there are some retrospective reports about the skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance and only one prospective trial comparing the skeletal and dental changes to a non-treated growing sample; no randomized clinical trial has yet evaluated the changes compared to a current standard of care alternative which is the simultaneous use of loaded springs concurrent with brackets and arch wires.
Twin-Block treatment and Dynamax treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion do not have different effects with regards to treatment duration, the quality of dento-occlusal outcome, skeletal and soft tissue profile, patient discomfort and gingival health.
For improving the appearance of protruded upper front teeth when lower front teeth may touch palatal mucosa or have proximity to that; the innovated Seifi's Functional Appliance may be used.