Treatment of mild Class II malocclusion in growing patients with clear aligners versus fixed multibracket therapy: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the dental and skeletal effects of intermaxillary elastics on the correction of mild Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion with clear aligner treatment (CA) versus fixed multibracket (FMB) in growing patients. SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The study sample consisted of 49 consecutively patients (mean age ± SD 12.9 ± 1.7 years), 32 females and 17 males referred from the School of Orthodontics of the University of Bratislava Comenius (Slovakia). All patients were treated with a non‐extraction orthodontic treatment, 25 with FMB and 24 with CA. METHODS: The cephalometric analysis was performed at the beginning (T0) and the end of the treatment (T1). The t test for unpaired data was carried out to compare cephalometric values at T0 and changes at T1‐T0 between the two groups. The level of significance was set as P < .0035. RESULTS: The two groups showed no statistically significant differences (ANPg = −0.1°; P = .762) in the correction of the sagittal intermaxillary relation. The analysis of vertical skeletal changes showed no statistically significant effects on mandibular inclination (SN/MP = 0.1°; P = .840). The two treatments had a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference in controlling the inclination of the lower incisors (L1/GoGn = 4.8°, CAG = −0.5°± 3.9°; FMB = 4.3°± 5.8°; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Class II elastics combined with CA and FMB produce a similar correction on sagittal discrepancies in growing patients. CA presented a better control in the proclination of the lower incisors. CA and elastics might be a good alternative in the correction of mild Class II malocclusion in cases where a proclination of lower incisors is unwanted.