Evaluation of the maxillary basal bone and molar change of skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion treated by sagittal-guidance Twin-block

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of sagittal-guidance Twin-block appliance on maxillary basal bone and buccal segment distalization in developing Angle Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion. METHODS: The measurement data of anterior-posterior direction and vertical dimension between pretherapy and post-treatment, including 34 developing Angle Class Ⅱ division 1 patients with sagittal-guidance Twin-block and non-extraction treatment, were quantitatively analyzed by X-ray cephalometry and Pancherz. SPSS 20.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: After orthopedic treatment, the maxilla significantly retruded (0.68 mm, P<0.01), the maxillary molars moved posteriorly (1.33 mm, P<0.01). After orthodontic treatment, the maxillary bone still turned out posteriorly (0.65 mm, P<0.05), and the molar teeth were slightly distalized (0.53 mm, P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The correction of developing Angle Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion can be achieved by sagittal-guidance Twin-block.

Key words: Sagittal-guidance Twin-block appliance, Pancherz analysis, Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion

CLC Number:

R783.5

YI Ying-yu, ZHAO Ning, SHEN Gang. Evaluation of the maxillary basal bone and molar change of skeletal Class Ⅱ malocclusion treated by sagittal-guidance Twin-block[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2016, 25(4): 456-460.

References

[1] 傅民魁, 张丁, 王邦康, 等. 中国25392名儿童与青少年错畸形患病率的调查 [J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2002, 37(5): 371-373.
[2] 傅民魁. 口腔正畸学 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2003.
[3] 傅民魁. 口腔正畸专科教程 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2007.
[4] Lau JW, Hägg U. Cephalometric morphology of Chinese with Class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion [J]. Br Dent J, 1999, 186(4 spec No): 188-190.
[5] Hinton RJ, Carlson DS. Histological changes in the articular eminence and mandibular fossa during growth of the rhesus monkey (Macacamulatta) [J]. Am J Anat, 1983, 166(1): 99-116.
[6] McNamara JA Jr, Carlson DS. Quantitative analysis of temporomandibular joint adaptations to protrusive function [J]. Am J Orthod, 1979, 76(6): 593-611.
[7] 李新桂, 叶金梅, 张栋杰, 等. Pitchfork分析法评估Twin-block 矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ1错的硬组织疗效 [J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(14): 64-67.
[8] 王茜, 左艳萍, 董福生. Pancherz分析法评估Twin-block矫治器治疗青少年安氏Ⅱ1错的硬组织效应 [J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2013, 6(3): 153-157.
[9] 盛海静. Twin-block功能矫治器治疗Angle Ⅱ类I分类错的临床研究 [J]. 口腔医学, 2012, 32(6): 357-358.
[10] 沈刚. 矢向引导型互阻式矫形技术治疗突面畸形-演化、变革与创新 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2015, 24(5): 513-518.
[11] Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation[J]. Eur J Orthod, 1986, 8(4): 215-228.
[12] von Bremen J, Pancherz H. Association between Björk's structural signs of mandibular growth rotation and skeletofacial morphology [J]. Angle Orthod, 2005, 75(4): 506-509.
[13] Aggarwal P, Kharbanda OP, Mathur R. Muscle response to the twin-block appliance: an electromyographic study of the masseter and anterior temporal muscles [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1999, 116(4): 405-414.
[14] Byun ES, Ahn SJ, Kim TW. Relationship between internal derangement of the temporomandibular joint and dentofacial morphology in women with anterior open bite [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005, 128(1): 87-95.
[15] Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy[J]. Angle Orthod, 2002, 72(5): 410-417.
[16] Franchi L, Baccetti T. Prediction of individual mandibular changes induced by functional jaw orthopedics followed by fixed appliances in Class Ⅱ patients[J]. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76(6): 950-954.
[17] Tewson DH, Heath JK, Meikle MC. Biochemical and autoradiographical evidence that anterior mandibular displacement in the young growing rat dose not stimulatecell proliferation or matrix formation at the mandibular condyle [J]. Arch Oral Biol, 1988, 33(2): 99-107.
[18] 彭静, 邓辉, 曹采方. 7~12岁女性儿童的颅上颌复合体深度变化的纵向研究 [J]. 口腔正畸学, 2001, 8(4): 164-167.
[19] Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements [J]. Am J Orthod, 1983, 83(5): 382-390.
[20] Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment[J]. Am J Orthod, 1984, 85(2): 125-134.
[21] Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class Ⅱ correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation [J]. Am J Orthod, 1982, 82(2): 104-113.
[22] Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years [J]. Eur J Orthod, 1983, 5(1): 1-46.
[23] Björk A. Facial growth rotation reflections on definition and cause [J]. Proc Finn Dent Soc, 1991, 87(1): 51-58.
[24] Springate SD, Jones AG. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: a comparison with tantalum implants[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1998, 113(3): 263-270.
[25] Melsen B. The cranial base: The postnatal development of the cranial base studied histologically on human autopsy material: Birte MelsenActa Odontol[J].Am J Orthod, 1974, 66(6): 689-691.
[26] Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics [M]. 4th Ed. St Louis: The Mosby Elsevier, 2007.