View clinical trials related to Malocclusion, Angle Class II.
Filter by:Orthognathic surgery is a type of jaw surgery where a surgeon cuts the bones of the upper and lower jaw and places them better. There are two ways they can put the bones in the correct place and keep them in place after the surgery. One way, called the "conventional method", is to use a 3D-printed guide called a splint to set the bones in the right place and then screw the bones together using metal plates that the surgeon bends into shape to fit during the surgery. Another way is to use a patient-specific implants (PSI) that has been 3D-printed in titanium beforehand that because of its unique shape both places and keeps all the bones in the correct place after they are screwed in. Both ways of doing it are golden standards, meaning they are already approved. Measuring the accuracy of the surgery is done by comparing the positions of the bones after the surgery with the intended positions of those bones, according to the surgical plan. The closer the achieved position of each bone is to the intended position, the more accurate the result. Measuring the stability of the surgery is done by comparing the positions of the bones after the surgery with the positions of the bones two years later. The less the position is changed, the more stable the result. The goal of this clinical trial is to see how accurate and stable PSIs are in orthognathic surgery when the maxilla is split in 3 pieces, and to compare them with the conventional method in patients with overjet or overbite. The main questions it aims to answer are: - Does using PSIs provide accurate movements of the maxilla pieces? - Does using PSIs provide more accurate movements of the maxilla pieces than the conventional method? - Does using PSIs provide stable movements of the maxilla pieces after 2 years? - Does using PSIs provide more stable movements of the maxilla pieces than the conventional method? Participants will get orthognathic surgery as part of their normal orthodontic treatment. Investigators will compare the PSI and conventional groups to see if the PSIs are more accurate than the conventional method.
The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effect of LLLT in adolescent patient with class II malocclusion. The main question it aims to answer is: • is there a difference in the amount of distalization between laser and control groups? Participants will received bony supported distal jet. Researchers will compare laser group with control group to see if there is a difference in amount of distalization between groups.
The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial is to evaluate the dentoalveolar and skeletal treatment effects of the AMDA when used for distalization of the maxillary first molars in patients with Class II malocclusion in the permanent dentition.
Effects of modified fixed twin block versus removable twin block on skeletal class 2 growing patients with mandibular deficiency: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Patients with skeletal class II malocclusion who have a retracted lower jaw will be treated in this study. The efficacy of clear Plates in the treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion will be assessed. The skeletal, dental and soft tissues changes resulted by this intervention will be studied and compared with the results of Traditional treatment with fixed appliances.
Patient with class ii division 1 malocclusion who have mild increased overjet will be treated in this study. The efficacy of clear aligners in the treatment of Class II division 1 Malocclusion Using Intermaxillary Elastics will be assessed. The skeletal, dental and soft tissues changes resulted by this intervention will be studied and compared with the results of Traditional treatment with fixed appliances. There are two group: 1. a group of patients in which participants will be undergo to the clear aligners with class ii elastics. 2. a group of patients in which participants will be undergo to the traditional fixed appliances with class ii elastics.
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.
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.
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).