CLASS II MALOCCLUSIONS: CLINICAL EFFICACY OF TEMPORARY SKELETAL SUPPORT DEVICES ( TADS ) IN CAMOUFLAGE TREATMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
malocclusion, Angle class II , temporary skeletal support, mini screws, orthodontic treatment, distalization .Abstract
Class II malocclusions are one of the most common orthodontic pathologies. Treatment of patients with fully formed skeletons is difficult due to the limited options for orthopedic correction. In such cases, orthodontic camouflage treatment using temporary skeletal support ( Temporary) can serve as an alternative to orthognathic surgery. Anchorage Devices ( TADs ).
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of TADs in the treatment of patients with Angle's Class II malocclusion . This study presents a series of six clinical cases. Treatment was performed using a fixed bracket system and miniscrews for distalization of the upper dentition and retraction of the anterior teeth.
The results showed a significant reduction in the sagittal gap (the mean value decreased from 6.8 mm to 2.3 mm, p < 0.05), improvement in intermaxillary relationships and normalization of the position of the upper incisors without tooth extraction.
Downloads
References
1.Nanda R. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics. New York: Elsevier Science; 2005. 383 p.
2.Nigmatov RN, Ruziev SD, Nigmatova IM. Rapid diagnosis of malocclusion using McNamara analysis. Patent DGU №44837. 2024 Dec 2.
3.Akbarov KS, Nigmatov RN, Kadirov JM. Biometric Bolton analysis of dental casts in children with malocclusion. Stomatologiya. 2022;4(89):6673.
4.Nigmatov RN, Ruziev SD, Khanova DN. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: applications and challenges. Integrative Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2024;3(2):6973.
5.Nabiev NV. Evaluation of bioelectrical activity of masticatory muscles in distal occlusion. Dissertation. Moscow; 2011. 163 p.
6. Angle E.H. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos. 1899;41:248–264.
7. Proffit W.R., Fields H.W., Larson B., Sarver D.M. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019.
8.Creekmore T.D., Eklund M.K. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:266–269.
9.Papadopoulos M.A. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion. Elsevier; 2014.
10.Sugawara J., Kanzaki R., Takahashi I., Nagasaka H., Nanda R. Distal movement of maxillary molars in adults with the skeletal anchorage system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:723–733.
11.Park H.S., Kwon O.W., Sung J.H. Microscrew implant anchorage sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:624–633.
12. Kuroda S., Sugawara Y., Deguchi T., Kyung H.M., Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36:141–147.
13. Upadhyay M., Yadav S., Nagaraj K., Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:490–498.
14.Wilmes B., Drescher D. Application and effectiveness of mini-implants in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod. 2011;45:455–465.
15.Kyung H.M., Park H.S., Bae S.M., Sung J.H., Kim I.B. Development of orthodontic micro-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:160–167.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India
