Helal Uddin¹*, Nazia Mehanaz², Ashish Kumar Banik³, Khandokar Shibly Shakil⁴ and Arup Kumar Saha⁵

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
²Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
³Professor, Department of Dentistry, Sir Salimullah Medical College, Mitford, Dhaka
⁴Medical Officer, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
⁵Professor and Head, Department of Dental Public Health, City Dental College and Hospital, Dhaka

*Corresponding Author: Helal Uddin, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka.

Received: December 15, 2023; Published: December 27, 2023

Abstract

Background: In growing patients with class II mandibular malocclusion, functional appliances and class II elastics are commonly used for mandibular advancement based on growth modification. However, excessive proclination of lower incisors and other undesirable consequences usually result from the use of monobloc appliance during orthodontic treatment.

Objective: To compare the effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue with a matched control group treated with a monobloc appliance for the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion caused to mandibular retrusion.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted among adolescents in Orthodontics Department, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (BSMMU). A sample of 16 adolescents aged 13-18 years were selected at random who required class II malocclusion treatment. Sample was divided into two equal groups. A computer sequence generator carried out randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio. In the elastics group, twelve patients were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group, patients used the monobloc appliance. The active elastics treatment time was considerably eight months for both groups. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were assessed statistically by measurements from lateral cephalometric radiographs. Nonparametric tests were employed in this study due to the small sample size. Evaluation of the changes seen at each treatment phase was done using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test and significant value was expressed at P < 0.05.

Results: In Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, and Ls-VRL, there were statistically significant group differences, and the elastics group showed significantly higher values of these parameters (P < .05). In our study, the mandibular incisors demonstrated protrusion in the monobloc group (99.51 ± 1.69°, P=0.028) while retrusion was observed in the elastics group (93,85 ± 1.35°, P = 0.028; P < .05).

Conclusions: Miniplate anchorage was used to eliminate the unfavorable dentoalveolar consequences of the monobloc appliance. Skeletal anchoring therapies, an alternative for treating skeletal Class II patients with mandibular insufficiency, can produce favorable skeletal results.

Keywords:Activator; Class II; Functional Treatment; Skeletal Anchorage

References

1. Proffit WR., et al. “Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey”. The International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 13 (1998): 97-106.
2. Celikoglu M., et al. “The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral, Cirugia Bucal 15 (2010): e791-e796.
3. Arici S., et al. “Effects of fixed functional appliance treatment on the temporomandibular joint”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 133 (2008): 809-814.
4. McNamara JA. “Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age”. The Angle Orthodontist 51 (1981): 177-202.
5. Eastwood AW. “The monobloc appliance”. Dental Clinics of North America 22 (1978): 739-755. 
6. Tumer N and Gultan AS. “Comparison of the effects of monobloc and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 116 (1999): 460-468.
7. Jones G., et al. “Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics”. The Angle Orthodontist 78 (2008): 332-338. 
8. Karacay S., et al. “Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions”. The Angle Orthodontist 76 (2006): 666-672.
9. Oztoprak MO., et al. “A cephalometric comparative study of Class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS (2)) and Forsus FRD appliances”. European Journal of Dentistry 6 (2012): 302-310.
10. Celikoglu M., et al. “Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: a retrospective clinical study”. The Angle Orthodontist 86 (2016): 306-314. 
11. Unal T., et al. “Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: a new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion”. The Angle Orthodontist 85 (2015): 413-419. 
12. Aslan BI., et al. “Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage”. The Angle Orthodontist 84 (2014): 76-87.
13. Ozbilek S., et al. “Effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics: A pilot study and new approach for treating Class II malocclusion”. The Angle Orthodontist 4 (2017): 505-512.
14. Koretsi V., et al. “Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. European Journal of Orthodontics 37 (2015): 418-434.
15. Casutt C., et al. “Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment”. European Journal of Orthodontics 29 (2007): 614-621.
16. Luzi C and Luzi V. “Skeletal Class II treatment with the miniscrew-anchored Herbst”. Orthodontie Française 84 (2013): 307-318. 
17. Turkkahraman H., et al. “Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in treatment of Class II malocclusion”. The Angle Orthodontist 86 (2016): 1026-1032. 
18. Jena AK., et al. “Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 130 (2009): 594-602.
19. Franchi L., et al. “Long-term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II malocclusion”. The Angle Orthodontist 83 (2013): 334-340.
20. Cozza P., et al. “Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy”. European Journal of Orthodontics 26 (2004): 293-302.
21. Gunay EA., et al. “Evaluation of the immediate dentofacial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the Forsus (TM) FRD”. European Journal of Dentistry 5 (2011): 423-432.
22. Aras A., et al. “Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 140 (2011): 616-625.
23. Bilgic F., et al. “Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusions”. Clinical Oral Investigations 19 (2015): 445-451.

Citation

Citation: Helal Uddin., et al. “Effectiveness of Anchorage Reinforcement using Skeletally Anchored Class II Elastics in Adolescent Patients".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 8.1 (2024): 109-114.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Helal Uddin., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.