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

Simona Dianiskova, Roberto Rongo, Raffaele Buono, Lorenzo Franchi, Ambra Michelotti, Vincenzo D'Antò, Simona Dianiskova, Roberto Rongo, Raffaele Buono, Lorenzo Franchi, Ambra Michelotti, Vincenzo D'Antò

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Class II elastics; Class II malocclusion; adolescents; clear aligners.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

© 2021 The Authors. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Cephalometric analysis and tracing: Sagittal skeletal: SNA (°), SNPg (°), ANPg (°), WITS (mm), Co‐Gn (mm), Vertical skeletal: SN to palatal plane (°), SN to mandibular plane (°), Palatal plane to mandibular plane (°), CoGoMe (°), Co‐Go (mm). Interdental: Overjet (mm), Overbite (mm). Maxillary dentoalveolar: U1 to palatal plane (°). Mandibular dentoalveolar: L1 to mandibular plane (°)

References

    1. Shalish M, Cooper‐Kazaz R, Ivgi I, et al. Adult patients’ adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Part I: a comparison between Labial, Lingual, and InvisalignTM . Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:724‐730.
    1. Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM. Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(3):276.e1‐276.e12.
    1. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(6):698.e1‐698.e12.
    1. Zhang B, Huang X, Huo S, et al. Effect of clear aligners on oral health‐related quality of life: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020;23(4):363‐370.
    1. Azaripour A, Weusmann J, Mahmoodi B, et al. Braces versus Invisalign®: gingival parameters and patients’ satisfaction during treatment: a cross‐sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:69.
    1. Pango Madariaga AC, Bucci R, Rongo R, Simeon V, D’Antò V, Valletta R. Impact of fixed orthodontic appliance and clear aligners on the periodontal health: a prospective clinical study. Dent J. 2020;8:4.
    1. Fang X, Qi R, Liu C. Root resorption in orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22:259‐269.
    1. Iliadi A, Koletsi D, Eliades T. Forces and moments generated by aligner‐type appliances for orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22:248‐258.
    1. Melkos AB. Advances in digital technology and orthodontics: a reference to the Invisalign method. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp. Clin Res. 2005;11(5):PI39‐PI42.
    1. Bucci R, Rongo R, Levatè C, et al. Thickness of orthodontic clear aligners after thermoforming and after 10 days of intraoral exposure: a prospective clinical study. Prog Orthod. 2019;20:36.
    1. Martina S, Rongo R, Bucci R, Razionale AV, Valletta R, D’Antò V. In vitro cytotoxicity of different thermoplastic materials for clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2019;89:942‐945.
    1. Robertson L, Kaur H, Fagundes NCF, Romanyk D, Major P, Flores MC. Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020;23:133‐142.
    1. Ravera S, Castroflorio T, Garino F, Daher S, Cugliari G, Deregibus A. Maxillary molar distalization with aligners in adult patients: a multicenter retrospective study. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:12.
    1. Simon M, Keilig L, Schwarze J, Jung BA, Bourauel C. Forces and moments generated by removable thermoplastic aligners: incisor torque, premolar derotation, and molar distalization. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:728‐736.
    1. Paduano S, Rongo R, Bucci R, et al. Is there an association between various aspects of oral health in Southern Italy children? An epidemiological study assessing dental decays, periodontal status, malocclusions and temporomandibular joint function. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018;19:176‐180.
    1. Pacha MM, Fleming PS, Johal A. Complications, impacts, and success rates of different approaches to treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2020;158:477‐494.
    1. Papageorgiou SN, Koletsi D, Iliadi A, Peltomaki T, Eliades T. Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta‐analyses. Eur J Orthod. 2020;42:331‐343.
    1. Janson G, Sathler R, Fernandes TMF, Branco NCC, de Freitas MR. Correction of class II malocclusion with class II elastics: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;143:383‐392.
    1. Caruso S, Nota A, Ehsani S, Maddalone E, Ojima K, Tecco S. Impact of molar teeth distalization with clear aligners on occlusal vertical dimension: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:182.
    1. Sabouni W, Eichelberger A, Des GO. Treatment of class II for growing patients by clear aligners: which protocol? Orthod Fr. 2019;90:13‐27.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;147:573‐577.
    1. Yoon JH, Yu H‐S, Choi Y, Choi T‐H, Choi S‐H, Cha J‐Y. Model analysis of digital models in moderate to severe crowding: In Vivo Validation and Clinical Application. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8414605.
    1. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Br Med J. 1940;2(4158):358‐359.
    1. Mossaz CF, Byloff FK, Kiliaridis S. Cervical headgear vs pendulum appliance for the treatment of moderate skeletal class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:616‐623.
    1. Antoun JS, Mei L, Gibbs K, Farella M. Effect of orthodontic treatment on the periodontal tissues. Periodontol. 2000;2017(74):140‐157.
    1. D’Antò V, Bucci R, Franchi L, Rongo R, Michelotti A, Martina R. Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42:624‐642.
    1. Rongo R, Bucci R, Adaimo R, et al. Two‐dimensional versus three‐dimensional Frӓnkel Manoeuvre: a reproducibility study. Eur J Orthod. 2020;42:157‐162.
    1. Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores‐Mir C. Short‐term treatment effects produced by the Twin‐block appliance: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:170‐176.
    1. Aras I, Pasaoglu A. Class II subdivision treatment with the forsus fatigue resistant device vs intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2017;87:371‐376.
    1. Linjawi AI, Abbassy MA. Dentoskeletal effects of the forsusTM fatigue resistance device in the treatment of class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Orthod Sci. 2018;7:5.
    1. Martina S, Di Stefano ML, Paduano FP, Aiello D, Valletta R, Paduano S. Evaluation of profile changes in class II individuals treated by means of herbst miniscope appliance. Dent J. 2020;8:27.
    1. Ruf S, Bock NC. Long‐term (≥15 years) effects of Class II treatment: a longitudinal and cross‐sectional study on signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Orthod. 2019;41:172‐179.
    1. Gerszewski C, Topolski F, Correr GM, Gomes RAP, Morais ND, Moro A. Dentoalveolar evaluation of lower incisors by Cbct after treatment with herbst appliance. Braz Dent J. 2018;29:562‐568.
    1. Harris K, Ojima K, Dan C, et al. Evaluation of open bite closure using clear aligners: a retrospective study. Prog Orthod. 2020;21:23.
    1. Zheng M, Liu R, Ni Z, Yu Z. Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20:127‐133.
    1. Ke Y, Zhu Y, Zhu M. A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:24.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi