The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Effect of Maxillary Posterior Space Discrepancy on the Molars and Overbite in Class II Malocclusions with Different Vertical Patterns

Farzaneh Golfeshan, Sepideh Khandadash, Parisa Salehi, Marziye Afsa

Keywords : Cephalometry, Molar angulation, Overbite, Posterior space discrepancy

Citation Information : Golfeshan F, Khandadash S, Salehi P, Afsa M. The Effect of Maxillary Posterior Space Discrepancy on the Molars and Overbite in Class II Malocclusions with Different Vertical Patterns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (4):438-444.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2806

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the influence of maxillary posterior space discrepancy (MPDD) on angulation and vertical position of molars in patients with skeletal class II malocclusions, presenting long, short, and normal vertical growth patterns. Materials and methods: In total, 120 lateral cephalograms of patients (mean age: 23 years) with skeletal class II malocclusion were evaluated. Patients were divided into six groups based on their vertical growth pattern (normal, long, and short faces) and the presence or absence of maxillary posterior discrepancy. Maxillary molars’ sagittal angulation and vertical position were measured on cephalograms via Dolphin™ three dimensional (3D) software (version 11.5). The comparison between groups with the same vertical dimension and different status of MPDD was done with independent t test. The analysis of analysis (ANOVA) was used to make pairwise comparison between all six groups. Finally, a multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of molar position and MPDD on the anterior overbite. Results: The results showed that the angulation of the maxillary first molar was not statistically different between groups with the same vertical dimension but varied in terms of MPDD. The maxillary second molar was more distally inclined in patients with MPDD than those without MPDD with short and normal facial types (p value = 0.016 and p value = 0.001, respectively). The second molar had significantly more distal angulation in long face patients than short and normal face participants, without considering the status of MPDD. The upper first and second molars were erupted more in patients with long than short or normal faces, without any influence of MPDD. Conclusion: The presence of MPDD caused more distal inclination of the maxillary second molar, in skeletal class II patients with short and normal vertical growth patterns. Clinical significance: The status of MPDD and its effect on the maxillary second molar teeth should be considered in skeletal class II patients with short and normal vertical growth patterns.


PDF Share
  1. Balut N, Klapper L, Sandrik J, et al. Variations in bracket placement in the preadjusted orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(1):62–67. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70015-3.
  2. Miethke R. Third order tooth movements with straight wire appliances. Influence of vestibular tooth crown morphology in the vertical plane. J Orofac Orthop 1997;58(4):186–197. DOI: 10.1007/BF02679959.
  3. Miethke RR, Melsen B. Effect of variation in tooth morphology and bracket position on first and third order correction with preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(3):329–335. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70246-5.
  4. Fayad JB, Levy JC, Yazbeck C, et al. Eruption of third molars: relationship to inclination of adjacent molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(2):200–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.010.
  5. Londhe S, Kumar P, Mitra R, et al. Efficacy of second molar to achieve anchorage control in maximum anchorage cases. Med J Armed Forces India 2010;66(3):220–224. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-1237(10)80041-3.
  6. M’Lissa MR, Sadowsky C. Efficacy of intraarch mechanics using differential moments for achieving anchorage control in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(4):441–448. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70053-2.
  7. Hart A, Taft L, Greenberg SN. The effectiveness of differential moments in establishing and maintaining anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(5):434–442. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81190-4.
  8. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, et al. Treatment effects of miniimplants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):18.e1–29.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025.
  9. Lai EH-H, Yao C-CJ, Chang JZ-C, et al. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(5):636–645. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017.
  10. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod 1992;26(11):706–714.
  11. Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. The role of the headgear in growth modification. Semin Orthod 2006;12(1):25–33. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.10.006.
  12. Bondemark L, Kurol J. Class II correction with magnets and superelastic coils followed by straight-wire mechanotherapy. J Orofac Orthop 1998;59(3):127–138. DOI: 10.1007/BF01317174.
  13. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Part 1: clinical and radiological evaluation. Angle Orthod 1997;67(4):249–260. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1997)067<0249:DMMU TP>2.3.CO;2.
  14. Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, et al. Anchorage loss—a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod 2003;73(6):730–737. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0730:ALMR>2.0.CO;2.
  15. Vela E, Taylor RW, Campbell PM, et al. Differences in craniofacial and dental characteristics of adolescent Mexican Americans and European Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(6):839–847. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.04.026.
  16. Årtun J, Thalib L, Little RM. Third molar angulation during and after treatment of adolescent orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod 2005;27(6):590–596. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji049.
  17. Swessi D, Stephens C. The spontaneous effects of lower first premolar extraction on the mesio-distal angulation of adjacent teeth and the relationship of this to extraction space closure in the long term. Eur J Orthod 1993;15(6):503–511. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/15.6.503.
  18. Rijpstra C, Lisson JA. Etiology of anterior open bite: a review. J Orofac Orthop 2016;77(4):281–286. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0029-1.
  19. Behbehani F, Årtun J, Thalib L. Prediction of mandibular thirdmolar impaction in adolescent orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(1):47–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.002.
  20. Årtun J, Behbehani F, Thalib L. Prediction of maxillary third molar impaction in adolescent orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod 2005;75(6):904–911. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[904:pomtmi]2.0.co;2.
  21. Merrifield LL, Klontz HA, Vaden JL. Differential diagnostic analysis system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106(6):641–648. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70090-7.
  22. Kim YH, Han UK, Lim DD, et al. Stability of anterior openbite correction with multiloop edgewise archwire therapy: a cephalometric follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118(1):43–54. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.104830.
  23. Costa MGd, Pazzini CA, Pantuzo MCG, et al. Is there justification for prophylactic extraction of third molars? A systematic review. Braz Oral Res 2013;27(2):183–188. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242013000100024.
  24. Tanaka EM, Sato S. Longitudinal alteration of the occlusal plane and development of different dentoskeletal frames during growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(5):602.e1–602.e11 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.010.
  25. Arriola-Guillén LE, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Pérez-Vargas LF, et al. Influence of maxillary posterior discrepancy on upper molar vertical position and facial vertical dimensions in subjects with or without skeletal open bite. Eur J Orthod 2015;38(3):251–258. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv067.
  26. Kim YH. Anterior openbite and its treatment with multiloop edgewise archwire. Angle Orthod 1987;57(4):290–321. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1987)057<0290:AOAITW>2.0.CO;2.
  27. Sato S. An approach to the treatment of malocclusion in consideration of dentofacial dynamics. Tokyo: Torin Books; 1991.
  28. Badawi Fayad J, Levy JC, Yazbeck C, et al. Eruption of third molars: relationship to inclination of adjacent molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(2):200–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.010.
  29. Arriola-Guillén LE, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Flores-Mir C. Influence of maxillary posterior dentoalveolar discrepancy on angulation of maxillary molars in individuals with skeletal open bite. Prog Orthod 2016;17(1):34. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0147-8.
  30. Su H, Han B, Li S, et al. Compensation trends of the angulation of first molars: retrospective study of 1403 malocclusion cases. Int J Oral Sci 2014;6(3):175–181. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2014.15.
  31. Chang YI, Moon SC. Cephalometric evaluation of the anterior open bite treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115(1):29–38. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70313-6.
  32. Gandhi V, Mehta F, Parekh H, et al. A new appliance for efficient molar distalization. J Clin Orthod 2017;51(11):738–747.
  33. Ribeiro GL, Regis Jr S, da Cunha TD, et al. Multiloop edgewise archwire in the treatment of a patient with an anterior open bite and a long face. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(1):89–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.036.
  34. Sato S, Takamoto K, Suzuki Y. Posterior discrepancy and development of skeletal class III malocclusion: its importance in orthodontic correction of skeletal class III malocclusion. Orthod Rev 1988;2(6):16–29.
  35. Ruiz-Mora GA, Arriola-Guillen LE, Flores-Mir C. Maxillary first molar vertical and horizontal position based on sagittal and vertical facial skeletal growth patterns on CBCT-synthesized cephalograms of adult patients with different dentofacial discrepancies but with normal overbite. Oral Health Dent Manage 2014;13(4):1152–1157. DOI: 10.4172/2247-2452.1000746.
  36. Henry RG. A classification of class II, division I malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1957;27(2):83–92.
  37. Chen S, Du FY, Chen G, et al. Enhancement of molar anchorage with X buccal tube. Chin J Orthod 2013;20(1):26–30.
  38. Liao C, Yang P, Zhao Z, et al. Study on the posterior teeth mesiodistal tipping degree of normal occlusion subjects among different facial growth patterns. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2010;28(4):374–377.
  39. Björk A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55(6):585–599. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90036-0.
  40. Cangialosi TJ. Skeletal morphologic features of anterior open bite. Am J Orthod 1984;85(1):28–36. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90120-9.
  41. Enlow DH, Kuroda TA, Lewis AB. Intrinsic craniofacial compensations. Angle Orthod 1971;41(4):271–285. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1971)041<0271:ICC>2.0.CO;2.
  42. Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Janson G, Arriola-Guillén LE, et al. Effect of posterior space discrepancy and third molar angulation on anterior overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154(4):477–486. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.014.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.