The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of Soft Tissue, Airway Dimension and Hyoid Bone Position in Class II Patients Treated by PowerScope Class 2 Corrector

Remmiya Mary Varghese, Subramanian Aravind Kumar, Yogesh Selvaraj

Keywords : Hyoid bone, Malocclusion, Oropharyngeal air spaces, PowerScope Class 2 corrector, Soft tissue

Citation Information : Varghese RM, Kumar SA, Selvaraj Y. Assessment of Soft Tissue, Airway Dimension and Hyoid Bone Position in Class II Patients Treated by PowerScope Class 2 Corrector. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (5):308-313.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3485

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-07-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aims to assess the changes in the soft tissue, pharyngeal airway dimensions, and hyoid bone position in patients treated with PowerScope Class 2 corrector to correct the skeletal Class II pattern. Materials and methods: This study was conducted on a sample of 20 cases diagnosed with Class II malocclusion. The lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after functional appliance therapy (T2) and were traced. The outcomes were compared for the mean changes in soft tissue, airway way dimension, and hyoid bone position. The paired t-test was used for the data comparisons wherein p < 0.05 was kept for statistical significance. Results: The mean values before and after treatment for H angle, mentolabial angle, lower lip E-line, upper lip S-line, lower lip S-line, and lip strain were 19.88 ± 2.77 vs 17.13 ± 1.659, 94.09 ± 12.164 vs 101.75 ± 11.28, –2.47 ± 1.213 vs –1.38 ± 0.976, 3.99 ± 0.19 vs 2.64 ± 0.32, 9.01 ± 0.247 vs 9.43 ± 0.238, 10.24 ± 0.510 vs 10.64 ± 0.52, respectively, which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). All airway spaces (except for lower pharyngeal space) and hyoid bone parameters were significantly improved posttreatment. Conclusion: The facial convexity, upper E-line, Z-angle, nasolabial angle, and lower pharyngeal space did not show statistically significant changes. The rest of the soft tissue parameters, oropharyngeal air spaces, and hyoid positioning measured in the study showed significant improvement after treatment with the PowerScope appliance in Class II patients. Clinical significance: Class II malocclusion is the most common dental anomaly with a high degree of prevalence in the population. This study will help the clinician in understanding the improvement of soft tissue, airway dimension, and hyoid bone position changes on treatment with a fixed functional appliance for the correction of Class II cases, thereby ensuring the greater success of orthodontic therapy in the future.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Paulose J, Antony PJ, Sureshkumar B, et al. PowerScope a Class II corrector – A case report. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(2):221–225. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.183044.
  2. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:153–161. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81005-4.
  3. Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72: 410–417. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0410:CDOSFA>2.0.CO;2.
  4. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, et al. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010.
  5. Varghese RM, Subramanian AK, Sreenivasagan S. Comparison of dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class II cases using two different fixed functional appliances: Forsus fatigue resistant device and powerscope class II corrector—A clinical study. J Int Oral Health 2021;13:234–244. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_246_20.
  6. Kumar S, Anjan R, Hassan N, et al. Adolescent and adult skeletal and soft tissue facial profiles. Ann Romanian Soc Cell Biol 2021; 25(2):734–739.
  7. Ghorbanyjavadpour F, Rakhshan V. Factors associated with the beauty of soft-tissue profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;155(6):832–843. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.020.
  8. Joshi M, Wu LP, Maharjan S, et al. Sagittal lip positions in different skeletal malocclusions: a cephalometric analysis. Progress in orthodontics 2015;16(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-015-0077-x.
  9. 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.
  10. Yassaei S, Tabatabaei Z, Ghafurifard R. Stability of pharyngeal airway dimensions, tongue and hyoid changes after treatment with a functional appliance. IJO 2012;23(1):9–15.
  11. Yousif AA. Evaluation of upper and lower pharyngeal airway in hypo and hyper divergent Class I, II and III malocclusions in a group of Egyptian patients. Tanta Dental Journal 2015;12(4):265–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.tdj.2015.07.001.
  12. Bavbek NC, Tuncer BB, Turkoz C, et al. Changes in airway dimensions and hyoid bone position following class II correction with forsus fatigue resistant device. Clin Oral Investig 2016 Sep;20(7):1747–1755. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1659-1.
  13. Tarvade SM, Chaudhari CV, Daokar SG, et al. Dentoskeletal comparison of changes seen in Class II cases treated by Twin Block and Forsus. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(3):27.
  14. Kalra A, Swami V, Bhosale V. Treatment effects of PowerScope fixed functional appliance–A clinical study. Folia Med 2021;63(2):253–263. 10.3897/folmed.63.e52892.
  15. Ansari A, Jain AK, Singh A, et al. Management of Skeletal Class II malocclusion in Non-Complaint Patient using Powerscope: A Case Report. Orthod J Nepal 2019;9(2):77–81. DOI: 10.3126/ojn.v9i2.28421.
  16. Malhotra A, Negi KS, Kaundal JR, et al. Cephalometric evaluation of dentoskeletal and soft-tissue changes with Powerscope Class II corrector. J Ind Orthodont Soc 2018;52(3):167–173. DOI: 10.4103/jios.jios_102_17.
  17. Antony T, Amin V, Hegde S, et al. The evaluation and clinical efficiency of PowerScope: An original research. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8(3):264–270. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_48_18.
  18. Shetty P, Shetty M, Chalapati M, et al. Comparative evaluation of hard-tissue and soft-tissue changes following fixed functional appliance treatment in a skeletal Class II malocclusion using forsus and PowerScope. J Health Allied Sci NU 2021;11(2):87–92. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722821.
  19. Arora V, Sharma R, Chowdhary S. Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2018;88(3):259–266. DOI: 10.2319/071717-476.1.
  20. Xiang M, Hu B, Liu Y, et al. Changes in airway dimensions following functional appliances in growing patients with skeletal class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;97:170–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.009.
  21. Kamoltham K, Charoemratrote C. Treatment effects of mandibular anterior position training versus a fixed Class II corrector in growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Orthodontic Waves 2018;77(4):209–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.odw.2018.07.003.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.