The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional assessment of the temporomandibular joint and mandibular dimensions after early correction of the maxillary arch form in patients with Class II division 1 or division 2 malocclusion

  • Coskuner, Hande Gorucu (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University) ;
  • Ciger, Semra (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University)
  • Received : 2014.09.18
  • Accepted : 2014.12.04
  • Published : 2015.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess three-dimensional changes in the temporomandibular joint positions and mandibular dimensions after correction of dental factors restricting mandibular growth in patients with Class II division 1 or division 2 malocclusion in the pubertal growth period. Methods: This prospective clinical study included 14 patients each with Class II division 1 (group I) and Class II division 2 (group II) malocclusions. The quad-helix was used for maxillary expansion, while utility arches were used for intrusion (group I) or protrusion and intrusion (group II) of the maxillary incisors. After approximately 2 months of treatment, an adequate maxillary arch width and acceptable maxillary incisor inclination were obtained. The patients were followed for an average of 6 months. Intraoral and extraoral photographs, plaster models, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were obtained before and after treatment. Lateral cephalometric and temporomandibular joint measurements were made from the CBCT images. Results: The mandibular dimensions increased in both groups, although mandibular positional changes were also found in group II. There were no differences in the condylar position within the mandibular fossa or the condylar dimensions. The mandibular fossa depth and condylar positions were symmetrical at treatment initiation and completion. Conclusions: Class II malocclusion can be partially corrected by achieving an ideal maxillary arch form, particularly in patients with Class II division 2 malocclusion. Restrictions of the mandible in the transverse or sagittal plane do not affect the temporomandibular joint positions in these patients because of the high adaptability of this joint.

Keywords

References

  1. Bishara SE. Class II Malocclusions: Diagnostic and clinical considerations with and without treatment. Semin Orthod 2006;12:11-24. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.10.005
  2. Yousefian J, Trimble D, Folkman G. A new look at the treatment of Class II Division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:771-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.016
  3. McNamara JA, Brudon WL. Orthodontic and orthopedic treatment in the mixed dentition. Ann Arbor, Mi: Needham Press; 1993. p. 365.
  4. Gianelly AA; Boston University School of Dental Medicine. Rapid palatal expansion in the absence of crossbites: added value? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124:362-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00568-7
  5. Reichenbach E, Bruuckl H, Taatz H. Kieferorthopadische klinik und therapie. Leipzig: J.A. Barth; 1971. p. 248.
  6. Lima Filho RM, Lima AC, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Spontaneous correction of Class II malocclusion after rapid palatal expansion. Angle Orthod 2003; 73:745-52.
  7. Marshall SD, Southard KA, Southard TE. Early transverse treatment. Semin Orthod 2005;11:130-9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.006
  8. Guest SS, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L. Improving Class II malocclusion as a side-effect of rapid maxillary expansion: a prospective clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:582-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.12.026
  9. Volk T, Sadowsky C, Begole EA, Boice P. Rapid palatal expansion for spontaneous Class II correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137:310-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.05.017
  10. McNamara JA Jr. Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:572-4. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.124167
  11. Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004;74:635-9.
  12. Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain/Orthodontics; 1979. p. 141.
  13. Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B. Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 1997;67:111-20.
  14. Hedges R. A cephalometric evaluation of class II, Division 2. Angle Orthod 1958;28:191-7.
  15. Sabri R. Treatment of a Class II Division 2 malocclusion with space reopening for a single-tooth implant. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119:135-42. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.112116
  16. Cleall JF, BeGole EA. Diagnosis and treatment of class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1982; 52:38-60.
  17. Timmons LS. Induced change in the anteroposterior relationship of the jaws. Angle Orthod 1972;42:245-51.
  18. Vitral RW, Fraga MR, de Oliveira RS, de Andrade Vitral JC. Temporomandibular joint alterations after correction of a unilateral posterior crossbite in a mixed-dentition patient: a computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132:395-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.033
  19. Rodrigues AF, Fraga MR, Vitral RW. Computed tomography evaluation of the temporomandibular joint in Class I malocclusion patients: condylar symmetry and condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:192-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.032
  20. Vitral RW, Telles Cde S. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in class II Division 1 subdivision patients: condylar symmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121:369-75. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.121664
  21. Vitral RW, Telles Cde S, Fraga MR, de Oliveira RS, Tanaka OM. Computed tomography evaluation of temporomandibular joint alterations in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions: condyle-fossa relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:48-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.012
  22. Hassel B, Farman AG. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70157-5
  23. Leonardi R, Caltabiano M, Cavallini C, Sicurezza E, Barbato E, Spampinato C, et al. Condyle fossa relationship associated with functional posterior crossbite, before and after rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1040-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/112211-725.1
  24. 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; 140:616-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.018
  25. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:375-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.4.375
  26. Grünheid T, Langenbach GE, Korfage JA, Zentner A, van Eijden TM. The adaptive response of jaw muscles to varying functional demands. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:596-612. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp093
  27. Du X, Hagg U. Muscular adaptation to gradual advancement of the mandible. Angle Orthod 2003;73: 525-31.
  28. Aggarwal P, Kharbanda OP, Mathur R, Duggal R, Parkash H. Muscle response to the twin-block appliance: an electromyographic study of the masseter and anterior temporal muscles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:405-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70225-8
  29. Sood S, Kharbanda OP, Duggal R, Sood M, Gulati S. Muscle response during treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35:331-8. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.35.3.5v86511u4h1mw144

Cited by

  1. Correction of Deep Overbite by Using a Modified Nance Appliance in an Adult Class II Division 2 Patient with Dehiscence Defect vol.2018, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9563875
  2. An Evaluation of Mandibular Dental and Basal Arch Dimensions in Class I and Class II Division 1 Adult Syrian Patients using Cone-beam Computed Tomography vol.19, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2279
  3. Comparison of the Condyle Sagittal Position of Class I and Class II Division 2 in Orthodontic Patients vol.21, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2867
  4. Changes in condylar position with maxillary expansion in growing patients. A systematic review of clinical studies vol.79, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/13440241.2020.1733297
  5. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on temporomandibular joints: vol.90, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2319/080619-517.1
  6. Cone beam computed tomographic evaluation of the changes in condylar position in growing patients with unilateral posterior crossbite undergoing rapid maxillary expansion followed by fixed orthodontic vol.22, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-021-00628-z