View clinical trials related to Malocclusion, Angle Class II.
Filter by:Sixty patients who need extraction-based treatment of the maxillary first premolars with subsequent retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth will be divided randomly into three groups: piezocision group, piezocision with low-level laser therapy group, and control group. In each group, after the levelling and alignment phase is completed, the rectangular stainless steel archwires (0.019" × 0.025") will be inserted, then after two weeks, the en masse retraction will be started via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 250 g of force per side. For anchorage, mini implants will be inserted between the second premolars and the first molar on each side.
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
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.
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
This study will be directed to evaluate The effect of two different types of fixed functional appliances on the temporomandibular joint. Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study. Study setting and population: This study will be conducted on twenty orthodontic patients. The number of patients was dependent on a power study. Sample size calculation was based on the observed average effect size derived from previous article addressing "the effect of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD using miniplates for the treatment of Class II malocclusion
the objective of the current study is to compare the dentofacial effects of the mini-plate anchored Herbst appliance Versus the dentally anchored Twin force bite corrector Appliance in Young Adult Class II Orthodontic Patients with retruded mandible.
This experimental study will evaluate the effect of an esthetic Twin-block appliance on the correction of class II malocclusion compared with the traditional Twin-block appliance. The study sample will consist of 50 patients with class II malocclusion. The sample will be allocated randomly into two groups: the control group and the experimental group. The traditional Twin-block appliance will be applied for the control group patients, while the esthetic Twin-block appliance will be applied for the experimental group patients. The dentoskeletal, soft tissue changes and esthetic and functional efficacy occurring after functional treatment will be assessed using cephalometric radiographs and profile photographs, pre and post-treatment, and a questionnaire. Changes for each group will be evaluated individually, and the two groups will be compared.
Together with the increased adult patient demand for orthodontic treatment and the push toward increasingly personalized treatment, technology developments have resulted in a growing worldwide demand for clear aligners, to the point that they are now an essential part of any orthodontic practice. Despite the widespread use of the technique, the existing literature about reliability of orthodontic tooth movement with Invisalign aligners seems not encouraging. Several papers have demonstrated that what is virtually planned is not what is clinically achievable. However, it should be considered that clear aligner orthodontics techniques are customized not only for the patients but for orthodontists too. Therefore, virtual treatment plan design, in terms of attachments' design and placement, orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) staging and aligner deformation overengineering, or in other words aligners biomechanics knowledge, plays a crucial role in defining the quality of the orthodontic treatment with Invisalign aligners. Based on these considerations the present study was designed to answer two research-clinical questions: 1) which are the less predictable orthodontic movements with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators? and 2) which is the impact of the orthodontist experience, in terms of patient motivation, on the predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with Invisalign aligners? To answer those questions, the predictability of OTM in a sample of Invisalign patients treated by expert operators was compared with the predictability of OTM in a sample treated by post-graduate students. The null hypothesis for question 1 is that all the prescribed orthodontic tooth movements are predictable, while the null hypothesis for question 2 is that the reliability of orthodontic tooth movement is not affected by operator experience. 98 patients (31 M, 67 F; mean age 28 ± 12 years) were selected among those in treatment at the Department of Orthodontics of the University of Turin, which is the coordinating center, and at 5 private orthodontics offices across Italy. The inclusion criteria for practitioners were as follows: orthodontist with huge and renewed experience in Invisalign treatments; has the ability to scan plaster model or to collect intraoral scans and upload (via internet) the files obtained to a central repository; affirms that the practice can devote sufficient time in patient scheduling to allow focused recording of all data required for the study; and does not anticipate retiring, selling the practice, or moving during the study. Signed, written informed consent was required before inclusion in the trial. All participants included in this prospective observational study had Class I or mild Class II malocclusion with mild to moderate crowding or spacing in the maxillary and mandibular dental arches (nonextraction cases). Interproximal enamel reduction was performed as prescribed in each patient's virtual treatment plan. The average treatment time was 10 ± 5 months. The sample considered a total of 2716 teeth that were analyzed overlapping the real post-treatment .stl file obtained with the final intra-oral scan to the planned post-treatment .stl file obtained exporting the final stage of the virtual setup. Every virtual treatment plan was designed by orthodontists with a huge and renewed experience in Invisalign treatments. While in the private practices the treatment was directly conducted by 5 expert orthodontist (mean age 45.6 ± 8.2) who controlled the patient at every appointment, in the University setting the treatment was conducted by 5 post-graduate students at the last year of their program (mean age 26.4± 1.4). Control appointments were fixed at 6 weeks interval in both the University and the private settings. Posttreatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck® software as stereolithography files and subsequently imported into Geomagic Qualify software (3D Systems(r), Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA), in order to compare individual tooth positions between digital models of each patient. The dental arches were superimposed using the landmark-based method and the surface-based method (Best Fit Alignment). So that the differences between the tooth positions could be calculated, 3 reference planes were identified on the virtual treatment plan model. Differences between the actual treatment outcome and the predicted outcome were calculated and tested for statistical significance for each tooth in the mesial-distal, vestibular-lingual, and occlusal-gingival directions, as well as for angulation, inclination, and rotation. Differences greater than 0.5 mm for linear measurements and 2° for angular measurements were considered clinically significant. In addition, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested for each previously calculated difference in tooth movement.