View clinical trials related to CLASS II DIVISION 1 MALOCCLUSION.
Filter by:The main objective of this prospective, controlled clinical study is: 1. To compare the treatment effects of PowerScope2 and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in patients with Class II divison1 malocclusion. 2. To compare the treatment effects of PowerScope2 and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device with the control group. The null hypothesis for this study is that Forsus and PowerScope2 are equally effective in the treatment of ClassII div1 malocclusion.
We aim to assess the treatment outcomes following upper incisors retraction accelerated by corticotomy procedure. So, we intend to randomize orthodontic patients with class II division I malocclusion into two groups: experimental group and control group. Both groups will start orthodontic treatment. Once a 0.019*0.025-inch stainless steel wire is fully engaged to the brackets, 1st premolars will be extracted. Canines will be retracted in the conventional manner. Then, the actual evaluation period starts when the upper incisors are retracted using two different methods.
The aim of this study is to assess skeletal (bone) and dental (teeth) changes occurring following wear of a twin block functional appliance (removable brace which postures the lower jaw forward to improve a discrepancy between the upper and lower jaw) for differing time periods.
The aim of the current controlled trial was to assess the possible net skeletal and dental effects of FLMGM treatment in relation to growth with emphasis on the contribution of skeletal and dental changes to sagittal correction of Cl II/1 malocclusion. The null hypothesis stated that there were no significant differences in dentoskeletal changes between FLMGM treated group and control untreated group.
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.
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.
This investigation aims at distinguishing the subjects that react in a favorable way to the treatment protocol we propose for the Class II treatment