Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2019 August;68(4) > Minerva Stomatologica 2019 August;68(4):160-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2019 August;68(4):160-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04208-0

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Efficiency in the correction of Class II division 1 malocclusions with prominent upper incisors and increased overjet: a comparison between two methods

Armando SILVESTRINI-BIAVATI 1 , Arturo FORTINI 2, Francesca SILVESTRINI-BIAVATI 3, Alessandro UGOLINI 1

1 Department of Orthodontics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; 2 Department of Orthodontics, University of Cagliari, Cagliari Italy; 3 Department of Orthodontics, G. Gaslini Hospital, Genoa, Italy



BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of high-pull traction on a Stephenson plate as well as cervical headgear treatments in Class II Division 1 growing subjects with prominent upper teeth and an increased overjet.
METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken, involving participants who underwent maxillary correction of Class II malocclusions. Twenty-three patients (Stephenson plate group, SPG, mean age 10.4±0.9 years) were treated and compared with 24 subjects treated with headgear (HGG, mean age 9.6±1.2 years). Lateral cephalograms were analysed using Jarabak and Pancherz analysis. Shapiro-Wilk’s and Student’s t tests were applied.
RESULTS: The SPG showed significant decreases in the overjet (-4.1 versus -0.8 mm) and molar relationship (-6.1 versus -1.5 mm). A significant upper-incisor correction was found in SPG (1/SpP -10.3° versus + 2.2°). SNA (-1.4 versus 0.3°) and WITS (-1 versus 0.3 mm) were reduced in SPG, showing a partial maxillary restraint. In SPG, the overjet correction (4.1 mm) was mainly due to the dental component (65.9%) and occurred almost completely in the maxilla (92.7%); the molar relationships improvement of 6.1 mm was mainly dental (77%); in HGG, the reduction of the overjet was limited (-0.8 mm), and the skeletal maxillary contribution was negligible.
CONCLUSIONS: The high-pull traction on the Stephenson plate was more efficient and effective than HG in the treatment of Class II dentoskeletal malocclusions with prominent upper teeth and a severe overjet; the overjet reduction was obtained at approximately 6 months, contributing to the substantial Class II correction.


KEY WORDS: Extraoral traction appliances; Malocclusion, angle class II; Overbite

top of page