Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2013 | Original article

Class II division 2 treatment—does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?

Authors: N.C. Bock, S. Ruf

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2013

Abstract

Aim

To analyze the influence of skeletal maturity on Herbst multibracket (MB) treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions and its stability.

Material and methods

A total of 37 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Class II division 2, fully erupted premolars and canines, Class II molar relationship ≥1/2 cusp widths bilaterally or 1 cusp width unilaterally, retention period ≥24 months). According to pretreatment hand wrist skeletal maturity the subjects were assigned to the groups EARLY (n=9), LATE (n=14) and ADULT (n=14). Lateral headfilms (T1: before treatment, T2: after Herbst MB treatment, T3: after retention) were analyzed using the Sagittal–Occlusal analysis and standard cephalometrics.

Results

During Herbst MB treatment (T2–T1), significant (p<0.001) molar relationship improvement was seen in all groups (EARLY: 3.6 mm; LATE: 3.7 mm; ADULT: 3.2 mm). The amount of skeletal effects contributing to molar correction varied markedly between the groups (EARLY: 19%; LATE: 62%; ADULT: 31%). Improvement (p<0.01) was also seen for ssNB angle (EARLY: 1.8°; LATE: 1.8°; ADULT: 0.9°) and overbite (EARLY: 3.3 mm; LATE: 4.5 mm; ADULT: 4.3 mm). During retention (T3–T2), minimal changes of molar relationship (<0.2 mm) and ssNB angle (<0.5°) were seen in all groups. Also the overbite relapsed (EARLY: 0.5 mm; LATE: 1.0 mm; ADULT: 1.1 mm) only to a clinically irrelevant extent.

Conclusion

Irrespective of skeletal maturity, Herbst MB treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions showed to be successful and stable. However, the LATE group showed the highest amount of skeletal effects contributing to the correction of the molar relationship.

Angle EH (1907) Malocclusion of the teeth. S.S. White Dental Manufacturing, Philadelphia, pp 35–59

Berg R (1983) Stability of deep overbite correction. Eur J Orthod 5:75–83PubMedCrossRef

Binda SKR, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maertens JK et al (1994) A long-term cephalometric evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 16:301–308PubMedCrossRef

Bock N, Ruf S (2008) Post-treatment occlusal changes in class II division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 30:608–613

Bock NC, Santo C, Pancherz H (2009) Facial profile and lip position changes in adult class II, division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst-multibracket appliance. Fortschr Kieferorthop 70:51–62CrossRef

Canut JA, Arias S (1999) A long-term evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis. Eur J Orthod 21:377–386PubMedCrossRef

Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. InterScience, New York

Delevianis HP, Kuftinec MM (1980) Variation in morphology of the maxillary central incisors found in Class II, division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 78:438–443CrossRef

Devreese H, De Pauw G, Van Maele G et al (2007) Stability of upper incisor inclination changes in Class II division 2 patients. Eur J Orthod 21:377–386

10.

Eberhard H, Hirschfelder U (1998) Treatment of Class II division 2 in the late growth period. Fortschr Kieferorthop 59:352–361CrossRef

11.

Ferrazzini G (2008) Class II/2 malocclusion: early treatment with removable appliances and stability after 20 years. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 118:814–819PubMed

12.

Fletcher GGT (1975) The retroclined upper incisor. Br J Orthod 2:207–216PubMed

13.

Fuhrmann R, Berg R (1990) Nachuntersuchung von Patienten mit Deckbiss des Typs Angle-Klasse II, 2. Prakt Kieferorthop 4:11–20

14.

Hägg U, Taranger J (1980) Skeletal stages of the hand and wrist as indicators of the pubertal growth spurt. Acta Odontol Scand 38:187–200PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U (1991) Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 13:471–481PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hansen K, Koutsonas TG, Pancherz H (1997) Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:92–103PubMedCrossRef

17.

Houston WJB (1989) Incisor edge-centroid relationships and overbite depth. Eur J Orthod 11:139–143PubMed

18.

Ingervall B, Seemann L, Thilander B (1972) Frequency of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in 10-year-old children in Gothenburg. Sven Tandlak Tidskr 65:7–21PubMed

19.

Karlsen AT (1994) Craniofacial characteristics in children with Angle Class II div. 2 malocclusion combined with extreme deep bite. Angle Orthod 64:123–130PubMed

20.

Kim TW, Little RM (1999) Postretention assessment of deep overbite correction in Class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 69:175–186PubMed

21.

Konik M, Pancherz H, Hansen K (1997) The mechanism of Class II correction in late Herbst treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:87–91PubMedCrossRef

22.

Lagerström L (1980) Tiefbißkorrektur in Angle Klasse II, 2 Okklusionsanomalien. Kieferorthopädie, Konzepte und Perspektiven. ZMS-Verlag, Munich, pp 129–136

23.

Lapatki BG, Mager AS, Schulte-Mönting J et al (2002) The importance of the level of the lip line and resting lip pressure in Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Dent Res 81:323–328PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lapatki BG, Klatt A, Schulte-Mönting J et al (2004) A retrospective cephalometric study for the quantitative assessment of relapse factors in cover-bite treatment. Fortschr Kieferorthop 65:475–488CrossRef

25.

Lapatki BG, Baustert D, Schulte-Mönting J et al (2006) Lip-to-incisor relationship and postorthodontic long-term stability of cover-bite treatment. Angle Orthod 76:942–949PubMedCrossRef

26.

Lapatki BG, Klatt A, Schulte-Mönting J et al (2007) Dentofacial parameters explaining variability in retroclination of the maxillary central Incisors. Fortschr Kieferorthop 68:109–123CrossRef

27.

Ludwig MK (1966) An analysis of anterior overbite relationship changes during and following orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 36:204–210PubMed

28.

Luffingham JK (1982) The lower lip and the maxillary central incisor. Eur J Orthod 4:263–268PubMedCrossRef

29.

Marku K (2006) Die Klasse II/2 Behandlung bei Postadoleszenten und jungen Erwachsenen mit der Herbst-/Multibracket-Apparatur. Thesis, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen

30.

Mayrhofer B (1933) Lehrbuch der Zahnheilkunde. Fischer, Jena

31.

Millett DT, Cunningham SJ, O’Brien KD et al (2009) Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

32.

Mills JRE (1973) The problem of overbite in Class II division 2 malocclusion. Br J Orthod 1:34–48PubMed

33.

Nicol WA (1963) The lower lip and the upper incisor teeth in Angle’s Class II division 2 malocclusion. Dent Pract 14:179–182

34.

Obijou C, Pancherz H (1997) Herbst appliance treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:287–291PubMedCrossRef

35.

Pancherz H (1982) The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 82:104–113PubMedCrossRef

36.

Pancherz H (1994) Früh- oder Spätbehandlung mit der Herbst-Apparatur – Stabilität oder Rezidiv. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 26:437–445

37.

Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M (1994) Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 16:275–186PubMedCrossRef

38.

Pancherz H, Fackel U (1990) The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of Class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 12:209–218PubMedCrossRef

39.

Pancherz H, Hansen K (1988) Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod 10:149–164PubMed

40.

Pancherz H, Ruf S, Erbe C, Hansen K (2004) The mechanism of Class II correction in surgical orthodontic treatment of adult Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 74:800−809PubMed

41.

Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M (1998) Class II, Division 2 malocclusion: a heritable pattern of small teeth in well developed jaws. Angle Orthod 68:9–20PubMed

42.

Posen AL (1972) The influence of maximum perioral and tongue force on the incisor teeth. Angle Orthod 42:285–309PubMed

43.

Ridley DR (1960) Some factors concerned with the reduction of excessive incisor overbite in Angle’s Class II division 2 malocclusion. Trans Br Soc Stud Orthod 118–140

44.

Riedel RA (1960) A review of the retention problem. Angle Orthod 30:179–199PubMed

45.

Ruf S, Pancherz H (1999) Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 69:239–246PubMed

46.

Ruf S, Hansen K, Pancherz H (1998) Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:100–106PubMedCrossRef

47.

Schudy F (1968) The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 38:19–39PubMed

48.

Schütz-Fransson U, Bjerklin K, Lindsten R (2006) Long-term follow-up of orthodontically treated deep bite patients. Eur J Orthod 28:503–512PubMedCrossRef

49.

Schweitzer M, Pancherz H (2001) The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/Multibracket appliance treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 71:358–363PubMed

50.

Selwyn-Barnett BJ (1991) Rationale of treatment for Class II division 2 malocclusion. Br J Orthod 18:173–181PubMed

51.

Simons ME, Joondeph DR (1973) Change in overbite: a ten-year post-retention study. Am J Orthod 64:349–367PubMedCrossRef

52.

Van der Linden F (1983) Development of the dentition. Quintessence, Chicago

53.

Van der Linden F, Boersma H (1988) Diagnose und Behandlungsplanung in der Kieferorthopädie. Quintessence, Berlin

54.

Weschler D, Pancherz H (2005) Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Angle Orthod 75:23–27PubMed

Title: Class II division 2 treatment—does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?
Authors: N.C. Bock
S. Ruf
Publication date: 01-05-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0139-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Class II division 2 treatment—does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?

Abstract

Aim

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Pubertal status of children and adolescents during orthodontic treatment

Eine randomisierte, doppelt verblindete klinische Studie zum Vergleich von vier Parodontitis-Therapiestrategien. Klinische Einjahresergebnisse

Are there differences on tooth movement between different sectional canine retractors?

Lateral cephalometric standards of Germans with normal occlusion from 6 to 17 years of age

Accuracy of torque-limiting devices for mini-implant removal: an in vitro study

Mitteilungen der DGKFO