Lip shape and position in Class II division 2 malocclusion

Controlling incisor torque with completely customized lingual appliances

PURPOSE

To test the null hypothesis of no significant deviation between the center of rotation (C_ROT) and the center of resistance (C_RES) during space closure in Angle class II division 2 subjects achieved using a completely customized lingual appliance (CCLA) in combination with class II elastics and elastic chains.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 29 patients (male/female 11/18; mean age 15.6 [13-27] years) with inclusion criteria of an Angle class II/2 occlusion of least of half of a cusp, maxillary dental arch spacing, completed CCLA treatment (WIN, DW Lingual Systems, Bad Essen, Germany) in one center with a standardized archwire sequence and use of class II elastics and elastic chains only. Maxillary incisor root inclination was assessed by X‑ray superimpositions of the maxilla at the beginning (T1) and the end (T3) of CCLA treatment. Using Keynote software (Apple®, Cupertino, CA, USA), the incisor's C_ROT was assessed with the point of intersection of the incisor axes (T1; T3) following vertical correction of overbite changes. C_RES was defined at 36% of the incisor's apex-incisal edge distance.

RESULTS

The null hypothesis was rejected: the mean C_ROT - C_RES difference was 52.6% (p < 0.001). The mean C_ROT was located at 88.6% (min-max 51-100%) of the incisor's apex-incisal edge distance. Although 6.9% of C_ROT were located between the C_RES and the alveolar crest, the vast majority (93.1%) were assessed between the alveolar crest and the incisal edge, or beyond.

CONCLUSION

CCLAs can create upper incisor palatal root torque even in cases in which lingually oriented forces applied incisally to the center of resistance of the upper incisors counteract these intended root movements.

Phenotypic diversity in white adults with moderate to severe Class II malocclusion

INTRODUCTION

Class II malocclusion affects about 15% of the population in the United States and is characterized by a convex profile and occlusal disharmonies. The specific etiologic mechanisms resulting in the range of Class II dentoskeletal combinations observed are not yet understood. Most studies describing Class II phenotypic diversity have used moderate sample sizes or focused on younger patients who later in life might outgrow their Class II discrepancies; such a focus might also preclude the visualization of adult Class II features. The majority have used simple correlation methods resulting in phenotypes that might not be generalizable to different samples and thus might not be suitable for studies of malocclusion etiology. The purpose of this study was to address these knowledge gaps by capturing the maximum phenotypic variations in a large sample of white Class II subjects selected with strict eligibility criteria and rigorously standardized multivariate reduction analyses.

METHODS

Sixty-three lateral cephalometric variables were measured from the pretreatment records of 309 white Class II adults (82 male, 227 female; ages, 16-60 years). Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to generate comprehensive phenotypes to identify the most homogeneous groups of subjects, reducing heterogeneity and improving the power of future malocclusion etiology studies.

RESULTS

Principal component analysis resulted in 7 principal components that accounted for 81% of the variation. The first 3 components represented variation on mandibular rotation, maxillary incisor angulation, and mandibular length. The cluster analysis identified 5 distinct Class II phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive spectrum of Class II phenotypic definitions was obtained that can be generalized to other samples to advance our efforts for identifying the etiologic factors underlying Class II malocclusion.