Prospective clinical study demonstrates significant skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in Class II patients, indicating effectiveness of the Class II corrector appliance.
Objective The study aims to comprehensively assess skeletal, dentoalveolar, condylar, and soft tissue adaptations following treatment with the Class II corrector appliance in growing individuals diagnosed with Class II Division 1 malocclusion using cephalometric and pitchfork analyses. Materials and Methods The study was carried out as a prospective clinical study on 14 growing patients (mean age: 12.6 ± 1.8 years) diagnosed with skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusion, with treatment outcomes assessed using lateral cephalograms following functional appliance therapy. Cephalometric analysis was used to evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar, condylar, and soft tissue adaptations. The assessment focused on variations in the skeletal base relationship, maxillomandibular lengths, and facial forms. Pitchfork analysis was used to determine molar correction and overjet reduction percentages attributable to skeletal versus dentoalveolar changes. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) cephalometric values, with p value <.05 was set as significant. Results Treatment with Class II corrector provides ANB angle with mean reduction of 1.9° and Wits appraisal with mean of −1.0 mm, indicating skeletal correction. Mandibular advancement was evident with an increase in Pg/OLp by 3.41 mm. Retroclined maxillary incisors and proclined mandibular incisors were also noted. The nasolabial angle increased (mean: 5.2°), and facial convexity was reduced significantly. Pitchfork analysis revealed that 48% of molar correction was skeletal and 52% dentoalveolar. Condylar head remodeling and anterior glenoid fossa remodeling contributed to mandibular advancement. Conclusion The Class II corrector (Leone Inc.) appliance produced significant skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes in growing individuals with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, with skeletal effects accounting for nearly half of the treatment changes. It presents a reliable alternative for noncompliant patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palaniappan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: