A retrospective study of Angle Class I malocclusions treated orthodontically without extractions using two palatal expansion methods

• Published in: American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 1999-07, Vol.116 (1), p.101-107
• Main Authors: Azizi, Mozhgan, Shrout, Michael K., Haas, Andrew J., Russell, Carl M., Hamilton, Edward H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Cuspid - pathology; Dental Arch - pathology; Dentistry; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Forecasting; Humans; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class II - pathology; Malocclusion, Angle Class II - therapy; Mandible - pathology; Maxilla - pathology; Molar - pathology; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontics, Corrective; Palatal Expansion Technique; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Time Factors; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0889-5406; 1097-6752
• DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70309-4

The correction and relapse of mandibular anterior crowding was evaluated in a population of 58 patients with Angle Class I malocclusion who were treated orthodontically without extraction of permanent teeth. The subjects were retrospectively evaluated from records taken before treatment, posttreatment, and postretention. The postretention period averaged 8 years (minimum of 4 and maximum of 20 years). All cases in Groups A and B were given orthopedic treatment to develop the maxillary apical base in the transverse and anteroposterior planes. Group A was treated with expansion of the inner bow of the face bow appliance (Kloehn), and Group B was treated with the Haas palatal expansion appliance. Both groups were then treated orthodontically with tandem mechanics. The response variables measured were: overbite, overjet, intercanine distance, intermolar distance, and irregularity index. Study groups A and B were not significantly different for subject age, retention, or postretention time. Moreover, the groups did not show significant difference for any of the response variables before treatment. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the treatment times ( P = .0133). A statistically significant treatment effect was observed for most response variables in the groups. Overbite, overjet, and irregularity index were significantly reduced, intermolar distance was significantly increased, and intercanine distance showed no significant change in Groups A and B. In the postretention period, there was a tendency for variables to change slightly toward their before treatment values but no compromise of orthodontic correction was noted. The irregularity index in Group A was corrected from 4.8 to 1.1 mm and remained at 1.1 mm in the postretention period. The irregularity index in Group B was corrected from 5.1 to 1.2 mm ( P = .0001) and changed slightly from 1.2 to 1.7 mm ( P = .0540) in the postretention period. We concluded that mandibular incisors tended to become more crowded postretention. However, in contrast to previous reports, we calculate this relapse to be small. Neither before treatment nor posttreatment variables were predictive of relapse. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:101-7)