The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Treatment of Dental Class-II, Division 2 Malocclusion Associated with a Deep Anterior Overbite: A Case Report Orthodontic Camouflage

Ehab A Abdulghani, Abeer A Al-Sosowa, BaoCheng Cao

Keywords : Deep overbite, Dental class-II, Division 2 malocclusion, Fixed orthodontic treatment, Gummy smile

Citation Information : Abdulghani EA, Al-Sosowa AA, Cao B. Treatment of Dental Class-II, Division 2 Malocclusion Associated with a Deep Anterior Overbite: A Case Report Orthodontic Camouflage. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (8):845-852.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3379

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-11-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: This study sought to correct the assessment of orthodontic camouflage treatment to provide a harmonized soft-tissue profile, consistent occlusion, and a pleasant smile. Background: Class-II, division 2 malocclusions can be treated through dental compensation and growth modification methods instead of surgical–orthodontic treatment, which can be determined by the growth and age of the patient. Case description: This case report was of a 14-year-old Chinese female whose chief complaint was crowding of anterior teeth and required treatment for the same. On necessary clinical and radiographical examination, diagnosis of convex facial profile with class-II, division 2 malocclusion was arrived and hence treated with orthodontic camouflage. On treatment completion of 33 months, cephalometric assessment revealed that the anterior maxillary teeth had been successfully intruded and substantially distalized, with a slight counterclockwise rotation of the mandible. The treatment results and profile changes were demonstrated with good patient cooperation. Conclusion: Using a utility arch with orthodontic camouflage treatment can help to reinforce molar anchoring and improve a deep bite in the maxillary dentitions. The patient was treated with the devised treatment plan and acceptable results were obtained with patient satisfaction as recorded after 1 year of follow-up. Clinical significance: To correct a maxillomandibular discrepancy, an orthodontist may conduct a process known as camouflage therapy without necessity of surgery. However, patient selection forms a crucial role, and hence systematic arrival of the diagnosis and treatment protocol is a pivotal factor.

  1. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Class II Division 2 malocclusion: A heritable pattern of small teeth in well-developed jaws. Angle Orthod 1998; 68(1):9–20. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068<0009:CIDMAH>2.3.CO;2.
  2. Brezniak N, Arad A, Heller M, et al. Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of angle class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002;72(3):251–257. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0251:PCCOCI> 2.0.CO;2.
  3. Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod 1977;72(1):1–22. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90121-x.
  4. McDowell EH, Baker IM. The skeletodental adaptations in deep bite correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100(4):370–375. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70076-9.
  5. Janzen EK. A balanced smile—a most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod 1977;72(4): 359–372. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90349-9.
  6. Brandão M, Pinho HS, Urias D. Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(2):239–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.035.
  7. Pearson LJC. The measurement of vertical dimension problems in growing patients. Craniofacial growth series. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth Development. University of Michigan; 2000. p. 36.
  8. Creekmore TD. Inhibition or stimulation of the vertical growth of the facial complex, its significance to treatment. Angle Orthod1967;37(4): 285–297. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1967)037<0285:IOSOTV>2.0.CO;2.
  9. Taner-Sarisoy L, Darendeliler N. The influence of extraction orthodontic treatment on craniofacial structures: Evaluation according to two different factors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115(5):508–514. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70272-6.
  10. Hayasaki SM, Henriques JFC, Janson G, et al. Influence of extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatment in japanese-brazilians with class I and class II division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127(1):30–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.043.
  11. Yamaguchi K, Nanda RS. The effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on the mandibular position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100(5):443–452. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70084-A.
  12. Haralabakis NB, Sifakakis IB. The effect of cervical headgear on patients with high or low mandibular plane angles and the—myth‖ of posterior mandibular rotation. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(3):310–317. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.028.
  13. Baek SH, Kim TK, Kim JT, et al. First or second premolar extraction effects on facial vertical dimension. Angle Orthod 2005;75(2):177–182. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0173:FOSPEE>2.0.CO;2.
  14. Monaco A, Streni O, Chiara Marci M, et al. Gummy smile: Clinical parameters useful for diagnosis and therapeutical approach. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29(1):19–25. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.29.1.y01l3r4m 06q3k2x0.
  15. Lapatki B, Mager A, Schulte-Moenting J, et al. The importance of the level of the lip line and resting lip pressure in class II, division 2 malocclusion. J Dent Res 2002;81(5):323–328. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100507.
  16. Lamberton CM, Reichart PA, Triratananimit P. Bimaxillary protrusion as a pathologic problem in the thai. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980;77(3):320–329. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90085-8.
  17. Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(1):67–72. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125235.
  18. Rajcich MM, 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.
  19. Hunt N, Shah R, Sinanan A, et al. Muscling in on malocclusions: Current concepts on the role of muscles in the etiology and treatment of malocclusion. J Orthod 2006;37:187–197. DOI: 10.1179/ 146531205225021660.
  20. Hunt NP, Cunningham SJ. The influence of orthognathic surgery on occlusal force in patients with vertical facial deformities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997;26(2):87–91. DOI: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80633-2.
  21. Garib DG, Yatabe MS, Ozawa TO, et al. Alveolar bone morphology under the perspective of the computed tomography: Defining the biological limits of tooth movement. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(5):192–205. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000500023.
  22. Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1997;31(11):763–767. PMID: 9511584.
  23. Prabhat K, Maheshwari S, Verma SK, et al. Treatment of class II malocclusion with noncompliance miniscrew implant-supported distalization system. J World Federation of Orthodontists 2012;1(2):e79–e86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2012.07.003.
  24. Raffaini M, Pisani C. Clinical and cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the three-dimensional increase in pharyngeal airway space following maxillo-mandibular rotation-advancement for class II-correction in patients without sleep apnoea (OSA). J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41(7):552–557. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.022.
  25. Mihalik CA, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Long-term follow-up of class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: A comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(3):266–278. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.43.
  26. Sutherland K, Lee RW, Cistulli PA. Obesity and craniofacial structure as risk factors for obstructive sleep apnoea: Impact of ethnicity. Respirology 2012;17(2):213–222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2011. 02082.x.
  27. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book Inc; 2000. pp. 240–93, 96–325, 449–477, 526–551, 644–673.
  28. Mills J. The problem of overbite in class II, division 2 malocclusion. Br J Orthod 1973;1(1):34–48. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.1.1.34.
  29. Batool I, Shaheed M, Rizvi SAA, et al. Comparison of upper and lower pharyngeal airway space in class II high and low angle cases. Pak Oral Dent J 2010;30(1):81–84.
  30. Jena AK, Singh SP, Utreja AK. Sagittal mandibular development effects on the dimensions of the awake pharyngeal airway passage. Angle Orthod 2010;80(6):1061–1067. DOI: 10.2319/030210-125.1.
  31. Ozl U, Orhan K, Rubenduz M. Two-dimensional lateral cephalometric evaluation of varying types of class II subgroups on posterior airway space in postadolescent girls: A pilot study. J Orofac Orthop 2013;74(1):18–27. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-012-0121-0.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.