Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions

The Potency of Invisalign® in Class II Malocclusion in Adults: A Narrative Review

In recent years, a greater number of adult patients are seeking orthodontic treatment, not only for esthetics but for better functioning and hygiene purposes. However, they are more focused on comfortable and invisible treatment alternatives to conventional metal brackets. This abstract is a multifaceted interplay between Invisalign® and different treatments of class II malocclusion, which embarks on the potency of Invisalign® in treating this condition in adult patients. The review delves into analyzing the efficacy of Invisalign® in molar distalization, class II elastics, extraction treatment, class II division 2 patients, their limitations, challenges, and future prospects. This article aspires the orthodontists understand the complex nature of class II malocclusion treatment in adults with Invisalign® and its application in clinical practice with improved patient outcomes.

Facial Soft Tissue Characteristics Among Sagittal and Vertical Skeletal Patterns: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

Background Facial esthetics depend on the skeletal and dental structures underlying variable facial soft tissue thickness. In this social context, determining the relationship between external soft tissue and underlying skeletal and dental hard tissue is essential for detailed orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Objective This study aims to measure facial soft tissue thickness in different sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. Methodology This is an observational study utilizing pre-existing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 170 subjects (110 females and 60 males) with a mean age group of 37.45 ± 13.83 years. CBCT images were then classified sagittally based on the point A-Nasion-point B (ANB) angle from Steiner's analysis into skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III. Furthermore, vertical patterns were grouped based on the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA) from Tweed's analysis into hyperdivergent, hypodivergent, and normodivergent facial types. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the means of facial soft tissue thickness between the skeletal groups, followed by Tukey's post-hoc test for individual comparison. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to test the association between gender, age, and skeletal groups. The significance level was 0.05. Results One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in both sagittal and vertical groups (p≤0.05). Tukey's post hoc analysis showed that the skeletal Class III group has increased soft tissue thickness in the subnasale, upper lip, and mention compared to Class I and Class II subjects. Moreover, the hypodivergent group demonstrated increased soft tissue thickness in gnathion and mentioned landmarks in relation to the other groups. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed significant differences between groups according to both gender and sagittal skeleton patterns (p≤0.05), with males less likely to be in Class II. Conclusions Skeletal Class III and hypodivergent groups have thicker soft tissue in specific facial landmarks. Sexual dimorphism was marked in soft tissue measurements.

Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types

Background

The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction.

Methods

Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N (p = 0.02) while it decreased -0.23 ± 2.25° (p = 0.60); These changes were not significant between groups after treatment (p = 0.680). Most dentoskeletal measurements changed significantly within groups but none of them showed statistically significant differences between groups after treatment. Dental and soft tissue changes were in accordance with the biomechanics used for this Class II orthodontic therapy.

Discussion

The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.