Class II, division 2 malocclusion--nonextraction

Molar distalization with a pendulum appliance K-loop combination

SUMMARY

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dentoalveolar effects of a pendulum appliance supported buccally by a K-loop, and to compare these with a cervical headgear (CHG) group. The records of 30 patients with skeletal Class I and dental Class II malocclusions were divided in to two groups: Patients in group 1 (seven females and eight males; mean age, 15.0 +/- 3.4 years) were treated with a pendulum appliance supported with a K-loop buccally, while in group 2 (10 females and 5 males; mean age, 14.2 +/- 2.9 years), the patients were treated with CHG. Standardized lateral cephalograms and study models were taken at the beginning of treatment (T0) and at the end of distal molar movement (T1). T0-T1 changes within the groups were analysed with a paired t-test, and between the groups with a t-test. The mean amount of distalization was 4.53 +/- 1.46 mm in group 1 and 2.23 +/- 1.68 mm in group 2. The mean amount of distal tipping for group 1 was 5.13 +/- 4.90 degrees; the mean amount of mesial tipping for group 2 was 0.80 +/- 2.27 degrees. Intrusion and mesiobuccal rotation of the maxillary molars were achieved in both groups. In group 1, the amount of labial protrusion and tipping of the maxillary incisors was not statistically significant. In group 2, palatoversion and retrusion of the maxillary incisors was statistically significant (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). The two major disadvantages of intraoral appliances, which are distal tipping of molars and loss of anchorage at the anterior teeth, were significantly decreased with the use of a pendulum appliance K-loop combination.

Class II subdivision treatment success rate with symmetric and asymmetric extraction protocols

The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of Class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with either symmetric or asymmetric extractions. The sample consisted of 51 patients with Class II subdivision malocclusion. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 28 patients who were treated with 4 premolar extractions. The 23 patients in group 2 were treated with 3 premolar extractions (2 maxillary premolars and 1 mandibular premolar on the Class I side). The initial and final study models were evaluated by means of Grainger's treatment priority index (TPI). Individual evaluations of improvements in maxillary-to-mandibular dental midline deviation, overjet, and overbite were also made. The final mean TPI and the mean improvement in TPI and in the other variables of each group were compared with independent t tests. The results showed a statistically significant difference only for the improvement in maxillary-to-mandibular dental midline deviation of the groups. The 3-premolar-extraction group had a greater improvement of the initial interdental midline deviation. There is a tendency for a slightly better treatment success rate when Class II subdivision patients are treated with asymmetric extraction of 3 premolars, compared with extraction of 4 premolars.