Relationship between crown-root angulation (collum angle) of maxillary central incisors in Class II, division 2 malocclusion and lower lip line

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e66-e74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhadrinath Srinivasan ◽  
Vignesh Kailasam ◽  
Arun Chitharanjan ◽  
Arthi Ramalingam
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Lower Lip ◽  
Crown Root ◽  
Collum Angle ◽  
Division 2

scholarly journals On the Interaction between Incisor Crown-Root Morphology and Third-Order Angulation

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 454-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Knösel ◽  
Klaus Jung ◽  
Thomas Attin ◽  
Wilfried Engelke ◽  
Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Third Order ◽  
Crown Root ◽  
Angle Class Ii ◽  
Angle Class ◽  
Group A ◽  
Incisor Inclination ◽  
Division 2

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the significance of crown-root angles (CRAs) by testing the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in deviations of third-order angles to axial inclination values between Angle Class II division 2 incisors and a neutral occlusion control sample. Materials and Methods: The study group comprised ntotal = 130 whites with either Angle Class II division 2 (n1 = 62; group A) or neutral (n2 = 68; control group B) occlusal relationships. Upper central incisor inclination (U1) was assessed with reference to the cephalometric lines NA and palatal plane (U1NA/deg, U1PP/deg). Craniofacial sagittal and vertical relations were classified using angles SNA, SNB, ANB, and NSL-PP. Third-order angles were derived from corresponding dental cast pairs using an incisor inclination gauge. Welch's two-sample t-tests (α-level: .05) were used to test the null hypothesis. Single linear regression was applied to determine third-order angle values as a function of axial inclination values (U1NA, U1PP) or sagittal craniofacial structures (ANB angle), separately for group A and B. Results: The discrepancy between axial inclination (U1NA, U1PP) and third-order angles is significantly different (P < .001) between groups A and B. Regression analysis revealed a simply moderate correlation between third-order measurements and axial inclinations or sagittal craniofacial structures. Conclusion: The hypothesis is rejected. The results of this study warn against the use of identical third-order angles irrespective of diminished CRAs typical for Angle Class II division 2 subjects. Routine CRA assessment may be considered in orthodontic treatment planning of Angle Class II division 2 cases.

The Problem of Overbite in Class II, Division 2 Malocclusion

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. E. Mills
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
The Other ◽  
Division I ◽  
Lower Lip ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Lower Jaw ◽  
Facial Height ◽  
Skeletal Pattern ◽  
Skull Radiographs ◽  
Division 2

The paper studies 60 Class II, Division 2 malocclusions, from lateral skull radiographs taken before treatment and at least 1 year after the end of retention. In the first part of the paper the nature of the malocclusion is analysed. It usually exhibits a Class II skeletal pattern, and while this is on average milder than for Class II, Division I, there is a marked variation between individuals. Other factors are a high inter-incisal angle, a high lip-line, and in some cases a small lower facial height. The upper and lower facial heights, on the other hand, are not appreciably greater than normal. The results of treatment are then analysed. Successful overbite reduction would seem to be associated with a reduction in inter-incisal angle and a relative lowering of the lower lip-line. Growth appears to be important in achieving overbite reduction. It is suggested that favourable rotation of the mandible may be a factor in overbite reduction in some cases, and this would repay further study. Finally attention is turned to the effect of incisor proclination. This was usually more successful in the lower jaw, but again there was wide individual variation.

scholarly journals COLLUM’S ANGLE AND CROWN ROOT ANGLE OF MAXILLARY INCISORS IN DIFFERENT MALOCCLUSIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 238-42
Author(s):  
Saadia Panezai ◽  
Nasrullah Mengal ◽  
Sadia Nisar Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
T Test ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Root Angle ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Collum Angle ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

Objective: To determine Collum angle and crown to root angle of maxillary central incisor in different skeletalmalocclusion. Study Design: Comparative cross sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Orthondontics department, Bolan Medical College, Civil Sandman Hospital,Quetta, from Jun to Dec 2018. Methodology: Data sample consisted of 140 lateral cephalograms. Sample consisted of 74 female cephalograms and 66 male cephalograms. The mean age of sampled subjects ranged between 21.62 ± 5.96 years. The Colum angle of the maxillary central incisors in each group was measured. SPSS version 21 was used to enter and process data. Comparison between Class II division 1 and division 2 collum angles was made by applying student t-test. Results: The average value for Collum angle in class II division 1 sample was 4.38 ± 3.08 with minimum being 0and maximum 15 degree. The average values for Class II division 2 was 10.52 ± 4.37 with minimum 30 and amaximum 23 degree. Conclusion: Maxillary central incisors in all malocclusions had significantly different mean Collum angles fromzero. Paired sample t-test comparison showed that the Collum angle for maxillary central was much higher inClass II division 2.

scholarly journals Analysis of soft tissue thickness in persons with malocclusions of class II division 1 and class II division 2

2012 ◽  
Vol 140 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 412-418
Author(s):  
Tatjana Tanic ◽  
Zorica Blazej ◽  
Vladimir Mitic
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Profile Analysis ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Upper Lip ◽  
Facial Soft Tissue ◽  
Lower Lip ◽  
Soft Tissue Profile ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

Introduction. Different malocclusions indicate different thickness of facial soft tissue. Objective. The aim of the study was to establish the differences in the thickness of facial soft tissue profile in persons with dentoskeletal Class II/1 and II/2 relationship. Methods. In the study we used cephalometric rendgenograms profile analysis of 60 patients aged 12-18 years of the Dental Clinic in Nis who had not previously undergone orthodontical treatment. According to the dentoskeletal jaws relations the patients were divided into two groups with Class II division 1 and Class II class division 2. In all of them the standard dentoskeletal profile analysis by Steiner and soft tissue profile analysis by Burston was done. The obtained findings were statistically analyzed and the comparison between the studied groups was performed. Results. The results indicated the following: in the patients with Class II/1 relationship there was a significantly thinner upper lip (t=5.741; p<0.0001), thinner upper lip sulcus (t=3.858; p<0.001) and significantly thinner lower lip (t=2.009; p<0.05) in relation to the patients with Class II/2. Compensatory effect in the Class II/1 patients was more distinctive in females, as their soft tissue profiles were thicker. In Class II/2 patients this relationship was in favor of males. Conclusion. The facial soft tissue profile indicated significant differences in the thickness dependant on the type of malocclusion and gender. Because of their great variability and a significant participation in the formation of the profile, while planning orthodontic therapy, it is necessary to pay them full attention, with obligatory analysis of the dentoskeletal profile.

The Retroclined Upper Incisor

1975 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. G. T. Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Oral Cavity ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Vertical Dimension ◽  
Class I ◽  
Lower Lip ◽  
Causative Factors ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Division 2

In the interest of further clarification of the interaction of the multiple causative factors of upper incisor retroclination, the development of Class II Division 2 occlusion is contrasted to that of Class I. The patients whose records were used had not received orthodontic treatment. It was found that upper incisor retroclination in Class II Division 2 occurred after their emergence into the oral cavity. The effect is attributed to the upper incisors being able to erupt well within the cover of the lower lip through a combination of circumstances related to the proportional balance of the patient's facial structures in the vertical dimension. The lower lip would guide the upper incisors into retroclined positions, only if the latter were unobstructed by digit, tongue or other teeth of either arch. This implied not only a critical balance in size and relationship of the facial structures in the vertical dimension but also equally critical balances in the antero-posterior and lateral dimensions, without which the lower lip factor alone would be ineffective.

Extraction or non-extraction treatment for Class II division 2 malocclusion?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-89
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Goldstein ◽  
Analia Veitz-Keenan
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Extraction Treatment

Comparative Dentoskeletal Study of Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 Malocclusion Subjects

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Jyoti Dhakal
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Basic Difference ◽  
Cephalometric Radiograph ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Dentoskeletal Morphology ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Dental Cast ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

The dentoskeletal characteristics of Class II malocclusion subjects were evaluated using cephalometric radiograph and dental cast of 60 untreated patients. The sample included 30 Class II Division 1 and 30 Class II Division 2 malocclusion patients. The inter-canine, inter-premolar, inter-molar, inter-canine alveolar, inter-premolar alveolar, inter-molar alveolar widths are measured on study models. The result showed statistically significant difference between the groups for mandibular inter-canine width only. The cephalometric analysis revealed that SNB angle was responsible for the skeletal sagittal difference between the two groups except for the position of maxillary incisors. No basic difference in dentoskeletal morphology existed between Class II Division 1 and Class II Division 2 malocclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document