Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279258759

NONEXTRACTION TREATMENT OF AN ADULT WITH CLASS II DIVISION 2


MALOCCLUSION

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 3,702

1 author:

Ilken Kocadereli
Hacettepe University
141 PUBLICATIONS   1,548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ilken Kocadereli on 29 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


CLINICAL DENTISTRY AND RESEARCH 2013; 37(3): 49-56 Case Report

NONEXTRACTION TREATMENT OF AN ADULT WITH CLASS II


DIVISION 2 MALOCCLUSION

Hande Görücü Coşkuner, DDS ABSTRACT


Research Assistant, Department of Orthodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University,
This case report describes the treatment of an adult with
Ankara, Turkey Class II division 2 malocclusion. The patient had class II molar
and class II canine relationships, retroclined upper and lower
İlken Kocadereli, DDS, PhD
incisors, excessive deep bite and severe crowding. The patient
Professor, Department of Orthodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, was treated by incisor protrusion and use of fixed functional
Ankara, Turkey appliance. An optimal molar and canine relationship was
achieved in 14 months.

Correspondence
Hande Görücü Coşkuner, DDS
Department of Orthodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry,
Key words: Class II Division 2 Malocclusion, Fixed Functional
Hacettepe University,
Appliance, Non-Extraction Treatment
Sıhhıye, 6100, Ankara / Turkey
Phone : +90 312 305 22 90 Submitted for Publication: 02.04.2013
Fax : +90 312 309 11 38
Accepted for Publication : 10.07.2013
E-mail: hande.gorucu@hotmail.com

49
CLINICAL DENTISTRY AND RESEARCH 2013; 37(3): 49-56 Olgu Bildirimi

SINIF II DİVİZYON 2 MALOKLÜZYONLU BİR ERİŞKİNİN ÇEKİMSİZ


TEDAVİSİ

Hande Görücü Coşkuner ÖZET


Araştırma Görevlisi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi,
Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı,
Bu olgu raporunda Sınıf II divizyon 2 maloklüzyona sahip erişkin
Ankara, Türkiye hastanın tedavisi anlatılmaktadır. Hastada sınıf II molar ve sınıf
II kanin ilişkisi, dikleşmiş üst ve alt insizörler, aşırı deep bite ve
İlken Kocadereli,
ciddi çapraşıklık bulunmaktaydı . Hastada insizör protrüzyonu
Prof. Dr., Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi,
Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı, ve sabit fonksiyonel aperey ile tedavi yapıldı. Optimum molar ve
Ankara, Türkiye kanin ilişkisi 14 ayda sağlandı.

Sorumlu Yazar
Hande Görücü Coşkuner
Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi,
Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sınıf II Divizyon 2 Maloklüzyon, Sabit
Sıhhiye, 6100, Ankara/Türkiye Fonksiyonel Aparey, Çekimsiz Tedavi
Telefon: +90 312 305 22 90
Yayın Başvuru Tarihi : 04.02.2013
Faks: +90 312 309 11 38
Yayına Kabul Tarihi : 07.10.2013
e-mail: hande.gorucu@hotmail.com

50
Treatment Of An Adult With Class II Division 2 Malocclusion

INTRODUCTION class II molar and class II canine relationships in the right


Epidemiologic investigations have shown that in a and left segments (Figure 2). Mandibular dental midline
population 2-5% of individuals have Class II division 2 was centered relative to facial midline but maxillary dental
malocclusion.1,2 Retrusion of maxillary incisors is one of midline was 2 mm deviated to the right of facial midline.
the main characteristics of class II division 2 malocclusion.3 The maxillary arch was square shaped with 8 mm crowding
Therefore, first step in the treatment strategy is to procline (Figure 3). In mandibular arch there was 6 mm crowding in
the upper incisors by removable plates or protrusion the anterior region (Figure 4).
utility arches and converting Class II division 2 to a Class II The panoramic x-rays showed no caries and no pathologies.
division 1. Later, class 2 mechanics are used for correction.4 All permanent teeth were present, right maxillary and both
In prepubertal or pubertal period, removable functional mandibular third molars were impacted (Figure 5).
appliances can be used but in postpubertal period usually Cephalometric examinations showed that both maxilla and
fixed functional appliances are preferred. mandible were retrusive and mandible was more retrusive
with an ANB angle of 6°. Lower anterior facial height was
CASE REPORT in normal values with 46°. Dentally, both the maxillary and
23 year 1 month old white girl referred to Hacettepe mandibular incisors were retroclined relative to cranial and
University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of apical bases and there was excessive deepbite (Figures
Orthodontics with a chief complaint that she did not like her 6-8).
smile because of the crowding of her anterior teeth. Her Treatment Objectives
medical and dental histories were unremarkable.
Our goals were to improve the patient’s facial esthetics and
Extraoral examinations showed concave profile
to provide functional occlusion. According to Ricketts soft
with prominent chin and deep labiomental sulcus. In
tissue analysis, lower lip should be 2 mm behind E line. In
anteroposterior projection no asymmetry was noticed.
our case lower lip was -4 mm to Ricketts E line. To improve
Her lips were competent (Figure 1). Intraorally she had

Figure 1. Pretreatment facial photographs

Figure 2. Pretreatment intraoral photographs

51
CLINICAL DENTISTRY AND RESEARCH

Figure 6. Initial cephalometric radiograph

Figure 3. Pretreatment maxillary arch 

Figure 7. Initial cephalometric tracing

Figure 4. Pretreatment mandibular arch

Figure 5. Initial panoramic radiograph Figure 8. Initial cephalometric tracing-Ricketts

52
Treatment Of An Adult With Class II Division 2 Malocclusion

facial esthetics, we should make lips more prominent and During treatment, patient was instructed for extraction of
therefore, we planned nonextraction treatment strategy. third molars, so all third molars were extracted in finishing
Dental treatment objectives included correction of class phase. For retention; Hawley retainers were placed above
II molar and canine relations, correction of deep bite upper and lower bonded lingual retainers and the patient
and correction of crowding by protrusion of incisors and was instructed to wear them full time for one year. After
expansion of dental arches. one year patient was called for periodic evaluation.
Treatment Alternatives Treatment Results
First treatment option was mandibular surgery after the Favorable facial changes were obtained (Figure 9). Lower
extraction of right and left mandibular first premolars for lip was forwarded 2 mm according to E plane. Ideal tooth
crowding and coordination of dental arches by expansion aspect was gained on full smile. Intraorally, deepbite was
and upper incisor proclination. Because of prominent chin, resolved and ideal overjet and overbite relationships were
after mandibular surgery genioplasty could be necessary. achieved. Maxillary and mandibular dental midlines were
The patient was not willing for surgical treatment. coincident with facial midline and class 1 molar and canine
Second treatment option was extraction treatment with relationships were established (Figures 10, 11,12).
the extraction of upper first premolar and lower second Cephalometrically, ANB angle decreased to 4° from 6° and
premolar. In that case correction of crowding and class II lower anterior facial height changed to 47° from 46°. Upper
molar canine relationship would be easier but profile of and lower incisors were proclined relative to cranial and
patient would worsen and correction of deep bite would be apical bases, and this proclination also helped the correction
difficult. of deepbite (Figures 13, 14, 15). In final panoramic
In non-extraction treatment crowding can be solved by radiograph, all third molars were extracted (Figure 16).
expansion of the arches and proclination of upper and
DISCUSSION
lower incisors. This would improve esthetics and correction
of deep bite would be easier so we decided to apply non- Usually, when treating patients who have 6 mm or more
extraction treatment. crowding in the mandibular arch, we consider extraction.
But in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion,
Treatment Progress
extraction would make the correction of deep bite difficult
After evaluation of the diagnostic records; the patient history and worsen the profile. In a case report, Asakawa et al.5
and the decision of the patient non-extraction orthodontic treated a girl with Class II division 2 malocclusion who has
correction was chosen as the treatment strategy. 8 mm mandibular crowding without extraction. They stated
Expansion was started with the application of a quad-helix that if the patient was treated with premolar or incisor
appliance. Then, upper incisors were bonded and after extraction, proper overjet and overbite couldn’t be obtained.
leveling with a utility arch, protrusion utility arch was placed For the reasons mentioned above and to improve facial
which has 45° intrusion bends. Concurrently mandibular profile we decided to treat the patient without extraction.
teeth were bonded and banded. After upper incisor After leveling of maxillary and mandibular arches, we
protraction, upper premolar and canines were bonded. corrected Class II molar and canine relationships by using
Later, for both upper and lower arches, 0,014 inch Ni-Ti, Forsus FRD. One of the main dental effects of Forsus
0,016 inch Ni-Ti, 0,016x0,016 inch Ni-Ti and 0,016x0,016 FRD is protrusion and intrusion of mandibular incisors
stainless steel wires are used respectively. When upper and with labial tipping.6,7 In our case both effects are seen and
lower leveling completed, 0.016x0.022 inch stainless steel also protrusion and intrusion of mandibular incisors had
wires were placed and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device favorable effect on correction of deepbite.
(3M Unitek 2724 South Peck Road Monrovia, CA 91016 Proclination of lower incisors are considered to be a major
USA) was used. Five months later, Class I molar and canine factor for gingival recession. In a study, Melsen et al.8
relationships were achieved. Forsus FRD was removed concluded that the risk of periodontal damage secondary to
and for occlusal settling intermaxillary elastics was used. protrusion of incisors is small. Also, Hasund et al.9 noted that
2 months later, after 14 months from the beginning of mandibular incisors could be proclined more in the patients
treatment, patient was debonded. with hypodivergent skeletal patterns and prominent chins.

53
CLINICAL DENTISTRY AND RESEARCH

Figure 9. Posttreatment facial photographs

Figure 10. Posttreatment maxillary arch Figure 11. Posttreatment mandibular arch

Figure 12. Posttreatment intraoral photographs

In treatment of a Class II division 2 female, Asakawa et al.5 end of treatment, large interincisal angle is associated with
also proclined upper and lower incisors significantly, but at relapse of deep overbite.
the end of the treatment no periodontal damage was noted. Our treatment lasted in 14 months. If we take a look at
By proclination of upper and lower incisors, interincisal angle treatment durations of Class II division 2 malocclusions,
decreased. In deepbite cases, it is chosen to achieve narrow we see prolonged durations. Chen et al.11 treated a 42-
interincisal angle for stability. Riedel 10 proposed that at the year old male with Class II division 2 malocclusion, deep

54
Treatment Of An Adult With Class II Division 2 Malocclusion

Figure 13. Final cephalometric radiograph

Figure 15. Final cephalometric tracing-Ricketts

Figure 16. Final panoramic radiograph

Figure 14. Final cephalometric tracing

deep bite and deep bite was corrected by incisor intrusion.


overbite and some missing teeth. The total treatment time A 12 year old Class II division 2 male was also treated without
was 30 months. One of the reasons of excessive treatment extraction and treatment duration was 14 months.16 It was
duration could be the age of the patient. There are similar with our treatment duration.
limited publications considering the relationship between According to Proffit 17; if Class II traction has proclined the
treatment duration and patient age.12,13 But in recent lower incisors more than 2 mm, permanent retention is
articles comparing treatment duration no difference was required. Usually patients are instructed to wear Hawley
found between adults and adolescents.14,15 Another reason retainers full time for one year, at night for an additional
for prolonged treatment time in that patient could be incisor year and later, return for periodic evaluation.11,16 In our
intrusion for correction of deepbite. In our case by incisor patient we used bonded lingual retainers and Hawley
protrusion and using Forsus FRD, deepbite was resolved retainers for retention.
and no other effort was taken for correction of deepbite. CONCLUSIONS
In another case report, 14 year old Class II division 2 female
Correction of Class II malocclusion without extraction
with severe crowding was treated without extraction.5
was achieved in 14 months. Class I molar and canine
Treatment duration was 24 months. She also had severe

55
CLINICAL DENTISTRY AND RESEARCH

relationships were obtained; favorable changes were seen 12. Chiappone RC. Special considerations for adult orthodontics. J
in patient’s profile, smile and aesthetics. Lower lip was Clin Orthod 1976; 10: 535-545.
forwarded according to E plane so improvement in profile
13. Barrer HG. The adult orthodontic patient . Am J Orthod 1977;
was achieved. Upper arch was expanded and incisors were 72: 617-640.
proclined so patient’s smile was fulled and these results
improved her aesthetics. 14. Robb SI, Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA. Effectiveness
and duration of orthodontic treatment in adults and adolescents.
REFERENCES Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 383-386.

1. Ast DH, Carlos JP, Cons NC. The prevalence and characteristics of 15. Becker A, Chaushu S. Success rate and duration of orthodontic
malocclusion among senior high school students in upstate New treatment for adult patients with palatally impacted maxillary
York. Am J Orthod 1965; 51: 437-445. canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 509-514.

2. Ingervall B, Seeman L, Thilander B. Frequency of malocclusion 16. Ferreira SL. Class II Division 2 deep overbite malocclusion
and need of orthodontic treatment in 10-year old children in correction with nonextraction therapy and Class II elastics. Am J
Gothenburg. Sven Tandlaek Tidskr 1972; 65: 7-21. Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 166-175.

3. Bishara SE. Class II Malocclusions: Diagnostic and Clinical 17. Proffit WR. Retention. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, editors.
Considerations With and Without Treatment. Semin Orthod 2006; Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book; 1993. P.
12: 11-24. 534-535.

4. Von Bremen J, Panscherz H. Efficiency of Class II Division 1 and


Class II Division 2 Treatment in Relation to Different Treatment
Approaches. Semin Orthod 2003; 9: 87-92.

5. Asakawa S, Al-Musaallam T, Handelman CS. Nonextraction


treatment of a Class II deepbite malocclusion with severe
mandibular crowding: Visualized treatment objectives for selecting
treatment options. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133:
308-316.

6. Aras A, Ada E, Saracoğlu H, Gezer NS, Aras I. Comparison of


treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation
to skeletal maturity: A cephalometric and magnetic resonance
imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 616-
625.

7. Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II Non-Extraction


Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus
Intermaxillary Elastics. Angle Orthodontist 2008; 78-2: 332-338.

8. Melsen B, Allais D. Factors of importance for the development


of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: A
retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 552-561.

9. Hasund A, Ulstein G. The position of incisors in relation to the


lines NA and NB in different facial types. Am J Orthod 1970; 57:
1-14.

10. Riedel RA. A review of retrusion problem. Angle Orthod 1960;


30: 179-194.

11. Chen YJ, Yao CCJ, Chang HF. Nonsurgical correction of skeletal
deep overbite and Class II Division 2 malocclusion in an adult
patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 371-378.

56

View publication stats

You might also like