View clinical trials related to Malocclusion, Angle Class II.
Filter by:Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars will participate in the study. They will be divided randomly into two groups: an en-masse retraction group and a two-step group. In each group, anterior teeth retraction will be initiated after completion of the leveling and alignment phase via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 150 g of force per side, Mini-implants will be used as an anchor unit in the en-masse retraction group, and TPA in the two-step's retraction group. The levels of pain, discomfort, and functional impairments will be self-reported using a validated questionnaire with a 4-points Likert scale.
There is a scarcity in literature regarding the influence of maxillary third molar on distalization . This study aimed to compare the influence of unerupted maxillary third molars and their extraction on the bilateral distalization of upper first molars using the infra-zygomatic gear distalizer
Rationale: Class II Division 1 malocclusion is characterized by upper anterior teeth protrusion resulting in upper lip protrusion and convex facial profile, which are considered esthetically unfavorable. Treatment of class II malocclusion due to maxillary protrusion can be done with bilateral maxillary first premolar extraction followed by en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth using mini implants placed between maxillary 2nd premolar & 1st molar. Treatment of class II malocclusion due to maxillary protrusion without premolar extraction frequently requires distalization of maxillary molars into Class I molar relation by means of extra-oral or intraoral forces. Absolute skeletal anchorage, available 24 hours a day is an alternative method for molar distalization. Zygomatic miniplates fixed at a distance from the root apices, allows distalization of entire dentition as there is no interference between the fixation device and roots of the teeth. Aims and Objectives: To quantify root resorption seen with bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars (followed by en - masse retraction of anterior teeth) vs full arch distalization with zygomatic miniplates in Class II Division I malocclusion. Method of study: Patients will be allocated randomly to 2 groups-G1 and G2. Patients in G1 will undergo bilateral maxillary 1st premolar extraction before bonding followed by leveling & alignment. Maxillary arch will be stabilized with the help of 0.019"×0.025" stainless steel wire. Hooks will be soldered on archwire used for stabilizing dentition. Mini implants will be placed under local anaesthesia between maxillary 2nd premolar & 1st molar. Ni-Ti closed coil spring will be used to apply a force for en masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth . In G2, treatment will be initiated by bonding 0.022" slot MBT preadjusted edgewise appliance. Maxillary arch will be stabilized with the help of 0.019"×0.025" stainless steel wire. Zygomatic miniplates will be placed bilaterally. Hooks will be soldered on archwire used for stabilizing dentition. Ni-Ti closed coil spring will be used to apply a force .
Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) was designed to correct a Class II molar relationship into a Class I relationship by distalizing the whole posterior maxillary segment by means of class II elastics and mandibular anchorage. To revoke the adverse effects of CMA with class II elastics, we can use the CMA to distalize the maxillary posterior segment with TADs anchorage using miniscrews. The aim of this study is to evaluate TADs anchored CMA vs. conventionally anchored CMA for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the pharyngeal airway changes after treatment with Myobrace and after treatment with Twinblock in developing skeletal Class II patients. The main question it aims to answer is: Is the efficacy of the twin-block Vs Myobrace appliances in the improvement of pharyngeal airway dimensions in adolescents having skeletal Class II malocclusion with retrognathic mandible utilizing sagittal pharyngeal airway area measurements.
The aim of this study is to compare the treatment results when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion using the Van Beek-Headgear Activator combination (vBHGA) appliance versus using the Andresen activator.
This study will collect data to try to assess which one of the two management options works better. The first option involves the use of the bite corrector first and then braces, while the second option involves the temporary addition of small support bone screws with the bite corrector later and then braces. Currently, it is not clearly known if there are important differences between the proposed management options. Such approaches are conventionally used in orthodontic practices. The information collected in this study will be used to compare the differences in the nature of the facial, teeth, and bone changes after the treatment. Questions about the experience while using the devices will be asked.
There is a scarcity in the current literature regarding such appliance and its effect on distalizing the first maxillary molar in absence of the second molar. Therefore, this study was made to evaluate the effect of bilateral distalization of upper first molars in a group of patients after extraction of maxillary second Molars using infra zygomatic mini implants.
Fixed Functional Appliances comparisons in treatment of orthodontic class II malocclusion cases
Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) was designed to change a Class II molar relationship into a Class I relationship by distalizing the whole posterior maxillary segment by means of class II elastics and mandibular anchorage. To eliminate the adverse effects of CMA with class II elastics, we can use the CMA to distalize the maxillary posterior segment with intra-arch anchorage using infrazygomatic miniscrews. The aim of this study is to evaluate skeletaly anchored CMA for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. conventionally anchored CMA by comparing skeletal and dental measurements obtained from lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained prior to treatment (T0) and immediately after correction of class II and remval of the appliance (T1).