TREATMENT OF SKELETAL CLASS II DIVISION II MALOCCLUSION WITH ACTIVATOR AND FIXED ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES: A CASE REPORT

Year 2018, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 23 - 28, 08.10.2018

Sanaz Sadry Muhammet Gürcan Elif Olgun

Abstract

The aim of this case report presents a male patient with skeletal Class II, dental Class II division II associated with deep bite treated by using functional appliance and fi xed orthodontic treatment. A 15-year, 6-month-old boy presented to our clinic with the complaint of retrognathic mandible. In clinical and radiographic evaluation, skeletal class II and dental class II division II anomaly and increased overbite found. Treatment was started with activator functional appliance. After 10 months, the relationship between mandibular advancement and class I molar and canine were achieved. 0.018 slot roth straightwire brackets were applied to the upper and lower teeth. Connecticut intrusion arc used for maxillary incisive teeth. Reverse curve arch wires applied to mandible. Class II elastics were used. Finally, in the case of dental class II division II, increased overbite was treated in 26 months with a good occlusion, normal overbite-overjet and achieved dental class I relationships.

Keywords

Class II division 2, Deep-bite, Functional therapy, Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA

References

• [1] ] W. R. Proffit, H. W. Fields Jr., and L. J. Moray, “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, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 97–106, 1998. [2] M. Alarashi, L. Franchi, A. Marinelli, and E. Defraia, “Morphometric analysis of the transverse dentoskeletal features of class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 2003. [3] Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A, et al. Efficacy of the Sander bitejumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion [4]] Shen G, Hägg U, Darendeliler M. Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible - removable vs. fixed functional appliances. Orthod Craniofac Res 2005; 8: 2-10. [5] Knierim K, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr. Assessing treatment outcomes for a graduate orthodontics program: Follow-up study for the classes of 2001-2003. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:648-655. [6] Pinskaya YB, Hsieh T-J, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr. Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:533-543 [7] C. Nelson, M. Harkness, and P. Herbison, “Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 153–161, 1993. [8]] P. Cozza, T. Baccetti, L. Franchi, L. De Toffol, and J. A. McNamara Jr., “Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 599.e1–599.e12, 2006. [9] Garlapati Y, Jadav CL, Kolasani SR, Mummidi B. Management of sever class II division II malocclusion using simplified MPA – A case report. APOS Trends Orthod 2013;3:89-93. [10] Flavio U, Ravindra N. Treatment of Class II, Division 2 Malocclusion in Adults: Biomechanical Considerations. Journal of Clinic Orthodontics 2003;37(11):599-606.