View clinical trials related to Malocclusion, Angle Class II.
Filter by: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).
There is currently no information on how mandibular advancement therapy could influence three-dimensionally the condylar and mandibular morphology in growing patients affected by Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). Therefore, the aim is to assess the three-dimensional morphological mandibular changes produced by the Invisalign® Mandibular Advancement (MA) (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA) in growing subjects affected by juvenile idiopathic arthritis with unilateral and bilateral JIA and to compare them with not-JIA control subjects
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.
Primary Objective Evaluating the effectiveness of canine retraction in terms of: rate of movement and rotation using 0.020-inch slot and dual-slot systems in comparison with the 0.022-inch slot system. Secondary Objectives - Measuring the amount of molar anchorage loss during canine retraction between the different bracket slot appliances. - Evaluation of alignment efficiency using different bracket slot appliances. Null Hypothesis There is insignificant difference in the effectiveness of canine retraction with different bracket slot size appliances. • Evaluation of the bracket slot and archwire dimensions precision
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.
Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage to retract the upper anterior teeth will participate in the study. They will be divided randomly into two groups: electrical group and control group. In each group, en-masse retraction will be initiated after completion of the leveling and alignment phase via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 250 g of force per side, Mini-implants will be used as an anchor unit. The dental changes will be detected using dental casts and to evaluate the rate of teeth retraction.
Thirty two patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth will participate in the study. They will be divided randomly into two groups: electrical group and control group. In each group, en-masse retraction will be initiated after completion of the leveling and alignment phase via closed nickel-titanium coil springs applying 250 g of force per side, Mini-implants will be used as an anchor unit. The overall retraction duration will be calculated. The skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes will be detected using panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs which will be obtained pretreatment, pre and post en-masse retraction of the anterior teeth.
Class II malocclusion presents a major and common challenge to orthodontists. Treatment of Class II malocclusion is one of the most investigated and controversial issues in contemporary orthodontics because of the extensive variability of treatment strategies addressing the morphological characteristics of this malocclusion. The therapeutic approaches include tooth extractions, orthopedic appliances and extraoral or intraoral distalizing appliances. Maxillary molar distalization is one of the most common strategies to correct Class II molar relationship and it is commonly indicated for patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion or minor skeletal discrepancies. One of the most used devices is Pendulum appliance, introducted by Hilgers in 1992. In the last decades, the orthodontic treatment with removable clear aligners has become an increasing common choice because of the growing number of adult patients who ask for aesthetic and comfortable alternatives to conventional fixed appliances. In 1997, Align Technology (Santa Clara, Calif) adapted and incorporated modern technologies to introduce the clear aligner treatment (CAT). Only few investigations have focused on the predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with CAT. A systematic review by Rossini et al. pointed out that among the dental movements analyzed in 11 studies, the bodily distalization was the most predictable. Clinicians can consider the use of aligners in treatment planning for adult patients requiring 2 to 3 mm of maxillary molar distalization. However, a detailed analysis of the skeletal and dental changes that compared pendulum appliance and clear aligners in class II treatment is still lacking. On the basis of these considerations, the aim of the present prospective study was to analyze the effects on vertical dentoskeletal changes following maxillary molar distalization with pendulum and full fixed appliances and clear aligners.