Skeletal Class I or Class II malocclusion and a bilateral end-to-end class II molar relationship Digestive System
Conditions
Interventions
Orthodontic treatment with Invisalign aligners, composite attachments and class II inter maxillary elastics. Lateral cephalograms in habitual occlusion obtained before and after treatment of 20 Caucas
Sponsors
University of Torino (Italy)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Age over 18 years old 2. Skeletal Class I or Class II malocclusion and a bilateral end-to-end class II molar relationship 3. Normodivergence on the vertical plane (SN/GoGn angle less than 37 degrees) 4. Mild crowding in the upper arch (= 4mm) 5. Standardized treatment protocol 6. Good compliance during the treatment (wearing aligners time: =20 hours per day) 7. Absence or previous extraction of the upper third molars 8. Good quality radiographs, with adequate landmark visualization and head rotation control
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Transversal dental or skeletal discrepancies 2. Vertical dental or skeletal discrepancies 3. Extraction treatment (except for third molars) 4. Unilateral distalization 5. Signs and/or symptoms of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) accordingly to Diagnostic Criteria for TMDs 6. Periodontal disease 7. Endodontic treatments of the maxillary molars 8. Prosthodontics rehabilitations of the maxillary molars
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Maxillary molars distalization movement: on the lateral cephalograms collected before (T0) and after treatment (T1) (mean treatment time was 24.3 ± 4.2 months) crown and roots landmark were identified in order to describe the mean distalization movements on the sagittal plane as well as the vertical and the angular movements. Crowns’ centers, obtained as the midpoint between the greatest mesial and distal convexity of the crown, as well as the axis passing through mesial cusps and mesio-vestibular roots’ apex were taken as reference points of the maxillary first and second molar as seen on the cephalograms. The movements of these points at T1 with respect to T0 were considered in relation to the reference axes represented by the palatal plane (x axis) and by a perpendicular line to the palatal plane passing through the Ricketts’ Pt point (y axis). The palatal plane was used to measure vertical and angular movements, while the y axis was used to measure sagittal movements of the second molar and of the first molar. The overall craniofacial treatment changes were evaluated by superimposing on the stable structures of the anterior cranial base according to the Structural Method (Björk A. Guide to superimposition of profile radiographs by “The Structural Method” http://www.angle-society.com/case/guide.pdf). Superimpositions were conducted digitally. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Central incisor retraction movement: the incisal edge point, the root apex point and the crown centre point, the midpoint of the lateral projection of the circumference formed by the root and crown conjunction, were the landmarks considered on the lateral cephalograms to describe the movement of the maxillary central incisor with respect to the reference axes described above. On the lateral headfilms, the palatal plane/mandibular plane (PP/MP) and the SN/mandibular plane angles were evaluated as indicators of skeletal posterior vertical dimension changes.The overall craniofacial treatment changes were evaluated by superimposing on the stable structures of the anterior cranial base according to the Structural Method (Björk A. Guide to superimposition of profile radiographs by “The Structural Method” http://www.angle-society.com/case/guide.pdf). Superimpositions were conducted digitally. | — |
Countries
Canada, Italy
Contacts
Public ContactAndrea Deregibus
Outcome results
None listed