A DİFFERENT APPROACH IN ANGLE CLASS II DİVİSİON 1 TREATMENT: CASE REPORT

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 2 - Cilt: 41 Sayı: 2, 107 - 114, 01.05.2014

Çağatay Günaydın Ayşegül Köklü Emre Cesur Orhan Özdiler

Öz

Class II division 1 malocclusions are frequently seen in orthodontic practice. Class II anomalies are characterized with a protruded maxilla, retruded mandible or combination of these two situations. Individiual variations and the correct diagnose of these differences are indispensable for the correction of Class II malocclusion. In this case report; orthodontic treatment of an adolescent patient with skeletal class II anomaly is described. Treatment objectives were to obtain Angle Class I molar and canine relationship, reduce the amount of overjet and overbite and to improve patient’s profile. Treatment plan was decided to be twophased. In the first phase slow maxillary expansion was applied with a removable device. To stimulate the saggital growth of mandible at the same time with maxillary expansion, the device was also designed with bite registration, which was Angle Class I molar and canine relationship. In the second phase, after achieveing enough amount of expansion, the bite registration was removed. New bite registration was made on the anterior part of the device to correct the overbite. At the same time servical headgear was applied to the patient to control the growth of the maxilla. After correcting the maxillomandibular relationship, fixed orthodontic treatment was applied. Active treatment time was 27 months , including 15 months of orthopedic treatment following 12 months of fixed orthodontic treatment. Angle Class I molar relation was obtained, and the patient’s profile improved. Bite registration device can be a good alternative to activators for skeletal Class II anomaly treatment

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bite registration, Growth prediction, modification

ANGLE SINIF II DİVİZYON 1 TEDAVİSİNDE FARKLI BİR YAKLAŞIM: OLGU SUNUMU

Öz

Sınıf II divizyon 1 maloklüzyonlara ortodonti kliniğinde sıklıkla karşılaşılmaktadır. Sınıf konumlanması, konumlanması kombinasyonu farklılıklar ve bu farklılıkların doğru teşhis edilmesi düzeltilmesinde çok önemlidir. Bu vaka raporunda, iskeletsel sınıf II anomali, dişsel Angle Sınıf II divizyon 1 maloklüzyona sahip adelosen anlatılmaktadır. Tedavi hedefleri; Angle Sınıf I molar ve kanin ilişkiyi elde etmek, overjet ve overbite miktarlarını azaltmak ve hasta profilini düzeltmektir. Tedavi planı iki aşamalı olarak düşünülmüştür. İlk aşamada slow maksillar ekspaniyon uygulanmıştır. Aynı anda mandibulanın sagital yön büyümesini stimule etmek amacıyla, plağa ısırtma izi, Angle Sınıf I molar ve kanin ilişkiyi sağlayacak aşamada; yeterli genişletme elde edildikten sonra, ısırtma izleri plaktan kaldırılmıştır. Yeni ısırtma izleri overbiteı düzeltebilmek amacıyla anterior Maksillomandibular ardından, sabit ortodontik tedavi uygulanmıştır. Aktif tedavi süresi 15 aylık ortopedik tedaviyi takip eden 12 aylık sabit ortodontik tedaviyi içeren 27 aydır. Angle Sınıf I molar ilişki elde edilmiştir ve hasta profili düzeltilmiştir. Isırma izi plağı iskeletsel Sınıf II anomalilerin tedavisinde aktivatörlere iyi bir alternatif olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kapanış düzenlenmesi, Büyüme tahmini, Modifikasyon

Kaynakça

• 1.Ackerman JF, Profitt WR. The characteristics of malocclusion: A modern approach to classification and diagnosis. Am J Orthod 1969; 56: 443–54.
• 2.Sassouni V. The Class II Syndrome: Differential diagnosis and treatment. Angle Orthod 1970; 4: 334–41.
• 3.Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 585-99.
• 4.Rakosi T. Differential diagnosis and planning in treatment of Class II malocclusions in the mixed dentiton. In: Graber LW. Orthodontics: state of the art, essence of the science, vol 1st ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1986; p.122 –139.
• 5.Spaldin PM. Treatment of class II malocclusions. In: Bishara SE. Textbook of orthodontics, vol 1st ed. Philedelphia: WB Saunders Co, 2001; p.324 – 75.
• 6.Panchers H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contrubuting to class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 124-34.
• 7. Pfeiffer JP, Grobety D. The Class II malocclusion: Differential diagnosis and clinical application, and fixed appliances. Am J Orthod 1975; 68: 499-544.
• 8. Bishara SE. Facial and Dental Changes in Adolescents and Their Clinical Implications. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 471-483.
• 9. Petrovic AG. A cybernetic approach to craniofacial growth control mechanisms. Nova Acta Leopold 1986; 58: 27–67.
• 10. Droschl H. The effect of heavy orthopedic forces on the maxilla in the growing Saimiri sciureus (squirrel monkey). Am J Orthod 1973; 63: 449-61.
• 11. Klein PL. An evaluation of cervical traction on the maxilla and the upper first permanent molar. Angle Orthod 1957; 27: 61-68.
• 12. King EW. Cervical anchorage in Class II, division 1 treatment: a cephalometric appraisal. Angle Orthod. 1957; 27: 98- 104.
• 13. Poulton DR. The influence of extraoral traction. Am J Orthod 1967; 53: 8-18.
• 14. Brown P. A cephalometric evaluation of high pull molar headgear and face-bow neck strap therapy. Am J Orthod 1978; 74: 621-32.
• 15. Wieslander L. The effect of force on craniofacial development. Am J Orthod 1974; 65: 531-38.
• 16. Rakosi T. The activator. In: Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. Dentofacial orthopedics with functional appliances, vol2nd ed. St.Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1997; p.161-188.