scholarly journals Treatment of large overjet in Angle Class II: division 1 malocclusion with Andresen activators versus prefabricated functional appliances—a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emina Čirgić ◽  
Heidrun Kjellberg ◽  
Ken Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Angle Class Ii ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Angle Class ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Functional Appliances ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinni Arora ◽  
Rekha Sharma ◽  
Sonal Chowdhary
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mandibular Molar ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Functional Appliances ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Materials and Methods: This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student's t-tests and chi square tests (P ≤ .05). Results: A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients (P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm). Conclusions: Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.

scholarly journals A comparison between two lingual orthodontic brackets in terms of speech performance and patients' acceptance in correcting Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samiha Haj-Younis ◽  
Tarek Z. Khattab ◽  
Mohammad Y. Hajeer ◽  
Hassan Farah
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Sound Production ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Speech Performance ◽  
Lingual Brackets ◽  
Patients Acceptance ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare speech performance and levels of oral impairment between two types of lingual brackets. Methods: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was carried out on patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion treated at the University of Hama School of Dentistry in Hama, Syria. A total of 46 participants (mean age: 22.3 ± 2.3 years) with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were randomly distributed into two groups with 23 patients each (1:1 allocation ratio). Either STb (Ormco) or 7th Generation (Ormco) lingual brackets were applied. Fricative sound/s/ spectrograms were analyzed directly before intervention (T0), one week following premolar extraction prior to bracket placement (T1), within 24 hours of bracket bonding (T2), one month after (T3), and three months after (T4) bracket placement. Patients′ acceptance was assessed by means of standardized questionnaires. Results: After bracket placement, significant deterioration in articulation was recorded at all assessment times in the 7th Generation group, and up to T3 in the STb group. Significant intergroup differences were detected at T2 and T3. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in reported tongue irritation levels, whereas chewing difficulty was significantly higher in the 7th Generation group one month after bracket placement. Conclusions: 7th Generation brackets have more interaction with sound production than STb ones. Although patients in both groups complained of some degree of oral impairment, STb appliances appeared to be more comfortable than the 7th Generation ones, particularly within the first month of treatment.

scholarly journals Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisor in an Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion patient

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 108-117
Author(s):  
Guilherme Thiesen
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Lateral Incisor ◽  
Occlusal Plane ◽  
Angle Class Ii ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Angle Class ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Maxillary Lateral Incisor ◽  
Dentofacial Orthopedics ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

The present case report describes the orthodontic treatment of a patient with agenesis of maxillary left lateral incisor and Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. The patient also presented with maxillary midline deviation and inclination of the occlusal plane in the anterior region. Treatment objectives were: correction of sagittal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible; correction of midline deviation, so as to cause maxillary and mandibular midlines to coincide; correction of overbite and leveling of the occlusal plane, so as to create ideal conditions for esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth. This case was presented to the Brazilian Board of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (BBO) as a requirement for the title of certified by the BBO.

The outcome of a two-phase treatment in a patient with Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion and an excessive overjet

2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-94
Author(s):  
Yoko Takigawa ◽  
Yuji Sanma ◽  
Setsuko Uematsu ◽  
Kenji Takada
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Angle Class Ii ◽  
Angle Class ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document