Class II division 2 treatment—does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?

Aim To analyze the influence of skeletal maturity on Herbst multibracket (MB) treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions and its stability. Material and methods A total of 37 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Class II division 2, fully erupted premolars and canines, Class II molar relat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of orofacial orthopedics 2013-05, Vol.74 (3), p.187-204
Main Authors: Bock, N.C., Ruf, S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Age Determination by Skeleton
Cephalometry
Child
Dentistry
Female
Humans
Male
Malocclusion, Angle Class II - diagnosis
Malocclusion, Angle Class II - rehabilitation
Mandible - diagnostic imaging
Medicine
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Original Article
Orthodontic Brackets
Orthodontics, Corrective - instrumentation
Orthodontics, Corrective - methods
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim To analyze the influence of skeletal maturity on Herbst multibracket (MB) treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions and its stability. Material and methods A total of 37 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Class II division 2, fully erupted premolars and canines, Class II molar relationship ≥1/2 cusp widths bilaterally or 1 cusp width unilaterally, retention period ≥24 months). According to pretreatment hand wrist skeletal maturity the subjects were assigned to the groups EARLY (n=9), LATE (n=14) and ADULT (n=14). Lateral headfilms (T1: before treatment, T2: after Herbst MB treatment, T3: after retention) were analyzed using the Sagittal–Occlusal analysis and standard cephalometrics. Results During Herbst MB treatment (T2–T1), significant (p
ISSN:1434-5293
1615-6714
DOI:10.1007/s00056-013-0139-y