Changes in incisors and their relationship with point A and nasolabial angle in Class II division 2 patients treated with and without extractions at the UPCH Teaching Dental Center.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20453/reh.v32i1.4179Keywords:
Malocclusion angle class II, cephalometry, orthodontic treatmentAbstract
Background: There are studies evaluating cephalometric parameters in Class II division 2 patients. There are no similar investigations in Peru. Objective: To evaluate post-treatment changes in incisor inclination and position and their relationship with the nasolabial angle (ANL) and point A (PA) in Class II division 2 patients, with and without extractions in cases of the Orthodontic specialty program of the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia. Material and methods: manual tracing and measurements of 62 lateral cephalometric radiographs (31 pre and 31 post-treatment) were performed, of patients with Malocclusion Class II division 2. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 21.0 for Windows. Results: There was proinclination and incisive protrusion in all patients. In patients with extractions, the ANL presented non-significant changes, but significant correlations: when the lower incisor inclination increased, the ANL decreased; when ANL increased, the interincisal angle (AII) increased. Point A (PA) experienced changes and correlations, but not significant. In patients without extractions, no correlations or significant changes were found in BP or ANL. Women treated without extraction did not show significant changes, in men the most significant changes were lower incisor inclination and protrusion. In the cases with extractions in men it was AII; and in women the AII and the upper incisor angle / palatal plane. Conclusions: There is a relationship between the changes that occur in the incisors and the ANL and PA, although most are not statistically significant.
Downloads
References
Barbosa LAG, Araujo E, Behrents RG, Buschang PH. Longitudinal cephalometric growth of untreated subjects with Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(5):914-20.
Caamones VT, Guzmán VGI. Orthodontic treatment of adult Class II, division 2 malocclusion patient: Case report. Rev Mex Ortodon. 2018;6(3):178-86.
Arvystas MG. Nonextraction treatment of severe class II, división 2 malocclusions. Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97(6):510-21.
Bayram M. Combined orthodontic-orthopedic treatment of an adolescent Class II Division 2 patient with extreme deepbite using the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152(3):389- 401.
Strang R. Class II, division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1958;28(4):210-14.
Burzin J, Nanda R. The stability of deep overbite correction. En: Nanda R, Burstone CJ, editors. Retention and stability in orthodontics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1993. p. 61-79.
Paixão MB, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ, Araujo TM. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15(6):123-30.
Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod. 1948;34:812-40.
Webb MA, Cordray FE, Rossouw PE. Upper-Incisor Position as a Determinant of the Ideal Soft-Tissue Profile. J Clin Orthod. 2016;50(11):651-62.
Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, Dinbar A, Dinte A, Wasserstein A. Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of Angle Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:251-7.
Devreese H, De Pauw G, Van Maele G, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM, Dermaut L. Stability of upper incisor inclination changes in Class II division 2 patients. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:314-20.
Freeman RS. Adjusting ANB angles to reflect the effect of maxillary position. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(2):162- 71.
Cangialosi TJ, Meistrell ME Jr. A cephalometric evaluation of hard- and soft- tissue changes during the third stage of Begg treatment. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:124-9.
Basdra EK, Kiokpasoglou M, Stellzig A. The Class II Division 2 craniofacial type is associated with numerous congenital tooth anomalies. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:529- 35.
Chen Q, Zhang C, Zhou Y. The effects of incisor inclination changes on the position of point A in lass II division 2 malocclusion using three-dimensional evaluation: a long-term prospective study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(10):3454-60.
Saelens NA, De Smit AA. Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):225-36.
Almeida F, Neves L, Junqueira T, Vieira V. Avaliação do ângulo nasolabial após o tratamento ortodôntico com e sem extração dos primeiros pré-molares. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial. 2008;13(6):51-8.
Bicakci AA, Cankaya OS, Mertoglu S, Yilmaz N, Altan BK. Does proclination of maxillary incisors ally affect the sagittal position of point A? Angle Orthod. 2013;83(6):943-7.
Riedel R. An Analysis of Dentofacial Relationships. Am J Orthod. 1958;44:1-25.
Burstone CJ. Integumental Contour and Extension Patterns. Angle Orthod. 1967;29:93-104.
Stoner MM, Lindquist JT, Vorhies JM, Hanes RA, Hapak FM, Haynes ET. A Cephalometric Evaluation of Fifty-Seven Consecutive Cases Treated by Dr. Charles H. Tweed. Angle Orthod. 1956;26:68-98
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors retain the copyright and cede to the journal the right of first publication, with the work registered with the Creative Commons License, which allows third parties to use what is published as long as they mention the authorship of the work, and to the first publication in this journal.
