Cargando…

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Männchen, Roland, Serafin, Marco, Fastuca, Rosamaria, Caprioglio, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35204952
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children9020232
_version_ 1784656706961145856
author Männchen, Roland
Serafin, Marco
Fastuca, Rosamaria
Caprioglio, Alberto
author_facet Männchen, Roland
Serafin, Marco
Fastuca, Rosamaria
Caprioglio, Alberto
author_sort Männchen, Roland
collection PubMed
description The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group (n = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.2 years), with first premolars not in contact and the second deciduous lower molars preserved, was compared to the LT group (n = 288, 137 M, 151 F, mean age 12.4 ± 1.5 years). The ET group was first treated with headgears, growth guide appliances, or Teuscher activators and, in borderline crowding cases, with lower space maintenance by a lingual arch, lip bumper, or fixed utility arch. The LT group and the second phase of ET were treated with full fixed appliances including intermaxillary forces such as Class II elastics or noncompliance devices; headgear and a growth guide appliance were also used. Cephalograms and plaster models were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2) to calculate cephalometric changes and space balance discrepancies. The differences between T1 and T2 were analyzed by a t-test for normally distributed data and by the Mann–Whitney Test for nonnormally distributed data at a level of p < 0.05. The groups were defined as statistically homogeneous at T1. A statistical analysis showed that the ET group (mean treatment time 35.3 ± 13.3 months) was significantly associated with a 22.2% lower extraction rate, 15.9% less need for a full fixed appliance, and more than 5° less incisor proclination in the nonextraction cases compared to the LT group (mean treatment time 25.9 ± 8.1 months); treatment time significantly increased in the ET group compared to the LT group. Early Class II treatment resulted in a significant treatment effort reduction in more than one third of the patients and less lower incisor proclination, even if it clinically increased treatment time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8870289
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88702892022-02-25 Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study Männchen, Roland Serafin, Marco Fastuca, Rosamaria Caprioglio, Alberto Children (Basel) Article The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group (n = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.2 years), with first premolars not in contact and the second deciduous lower molars preserved, was compared to the LT group (n = 288, 137 M, 151 F, mean age 12.4 ± 1.5 years). The ET group was first treated with headgears, growth guide appliances, or Teuscher activators and, in borderline crowding cases, with lower space maintenance by a lingual arch, lip bumper, or fixed utility arch. The LT group and the second phase of ET were treated with full fixed appliances including intermaxillary forces such as Class II elastics or noncompliance devices; headgear and a growth guide appliance were also used. Cephalograms and plaster models were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2) to calculate cephalometric changes and space balance discrepancies. The differences between T1 and T2 were analyzed by a t-test for normally distributed data and by the Mann–Whitney Test for nonnormally distributed data at a level of p < 0.05. The groups were defined as statistically homogeneous at T1. A statistical analysis showed that the ET group (mean treatment time 35.3 ± 13.3 months) was significantly associated with a 22.2% lower extraction rate, 15.9% less need for a full fixed appliance, and more than 5° less incisor proclination in the nonextraction cases compared to the LT group (mean treatment time 25.9 ± 8.1 months); treatment time significantly increased in the ET group compared to the LT group. Early Class II treatment resulted in a significant treatment effort reduction in more than one third of the patients and less lower incisor proclination, even if it clinically increased treatment time. MDPI 2022-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8870289/ /pubmed/35204952 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children9020232 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Männchen, Roland
Serafin, Marco
Fastuca, Rosamaria
Caprioglio, Alberto
Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title_full Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title_short Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study
title_sort does early treatment improve clinical outcome of class ii patients? a retrospective study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35204952
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children9020232
work_keys_str_mv AT mannchenroland doesearlytreatmentimproveclinicaloutcomeofclassiipatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT serafinmarco doesearlytreatmentimproveclinicaloutcomeofclassiipatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT fastucarosamaria doesearlytreatmentimproveclinicaloutcomeofclassiipatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT caprioglioalberto doesearlytreatmentimproveclinicaloutcomeofclassiipatientsaretrospectivestudy