Diego Luiz Tonello, Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti, Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro, Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira, Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Daniela Garib, Guilherme Janson
{"title":"Efficiency of Class II Malocclusion Treatment With Extraction of 2 Maxillary Premolars and the First Class Appliance Anchored in Mini-Implants.","authors":"Diego Luiz Tonello, Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti, Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro, Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira, Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Daniela Garib, Guilherme Janson","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Treatment efficiency is considered an important clinical variable in orthodontic practice; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficiency between different Class II compensatory treatment approaches. The extraction of 2 maxillary premolars was compared to molar distalization with the First Class distaliser indirectly anchored to mini-implants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective sample of 31 patients was divided into two groups. Group 1: Class II treatment with two premolar extractions; 18 patients with a mean initial age of 14.3 ± 1.3 years. Group 2: Distalization with the First Class appliance indirectly anchored to mini-implants; 13 patients with a mean initial age of 13.3 ± 1.3 years. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Objective Grading System (OGS) were used to calculate the percentage of occlusal improvement (PcPAR), treatment time (TT) and treatment efficiency index (TEI). The occlusal indexes, TT and TEI between both groups were compared using t tests (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Similar occlusal outcomes were observed between the groups, with no statistically significant differences (F-PAR and OGS). The TT in Group 1 was significantly shorter compared to Group 2. As a result, treatment with extractions was significantly more efficient (TEI: 3.23) than the treatment with maxillary molar distalization anchored indirectly to mini-implants (TEI: 1.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both treatment protocols showed similar occlusal results; however, Class II correction with two premolar extractions is significantly more efficient than molar distalization with indirect skeletal anchorage.</p>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12905","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Treatment efficiency is considered an important clinical variable in orthodontic practice; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficiency between different Class II compensatory treatment approaches. The extraction of 2 maxillary premolars was compared to molar distalization with the First Class distaliser indirectly anchored to mini-implants.
Materials and methods: A retrospective sample of 31 patients was divided into two groups. Group 1: Class II treatment with two premolar extractions; 18 patients with a mean initial age of 14.3 ± 1.3 years. Group 2: Distalization with the First Class appliance indirectly anchored to mini-implants; 13 patients with a mean initial age of 13.3 ± 1.3 years. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Objective Grading System (OGS) were used to calculate the percentage of occlusal improvement (PcPAR), treatment time (TT) and treatment efficiency index (TEI). The occlusal indexes, TT and TEI between both groups were compared using t tests (p < 0.05).
Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were observed between the groups, with no statistically significant differences (F-PAR and OGS). The TT in Group 1 was significantly shorter compared to Group 2. As a result, treatment with extractions was significantly more efficient (TEI: 3.23) than the treatment with maxillary molar distalization anchored indirectly to mini-implants (TEI: 1.95).
Conclusions: Both treatment protocols showed similar occlusal results; however, Class II correction with two premolar extractions is significantly more efficient than molar distalization with indirect skeletal anchorage.
期刊介绍:
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions.
The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements.
The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.