Introduction: Borderline Class II malocclusion due to deficient mandible can be treated either by orthodontic camouflage, fixed functional appliances or by orthodontics followed by surgical mandibular advancement. Met...Introduction: Borderline Class II malocclusion due to deficient mandible can be treated either by orthodontic camouflage, fixed functional appliances or by orthodontics followed by surgical mandibular advancement. Methodology: A prospective study was designed on young adults with Class II malocclusion on account of a deficient mandible. A total of 45 subjects were divided into three groups of 15 individuals each. The patients were treated either by camouflage, fixed functional appliances or by orthognathic surgery. Pre and post treatment cephalograms were used to assess the skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes. Pre and post treatment profile photographs were assessed on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by orthodontists, oral surgeons and laypersons. Results: Each group achieved a reduction in facial convexity, but the results obtained from the surgical group were more pronounced than the camouflage and the fixed functional group. Conclusion: The reduction in convexity in the camouflage group was by retracting the upper anteriors, which increases the nasolabial angle. In the fixed functional appliance a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes can be observed. However the most appropriate reduction in profile convexity can be obtained by combined orthodontic and surgical treatment of malocclusion.展开更多
文摘Introduction: Borderline Class II malocclusion due to deficient mandible can be treated either by orthodontic camouflage, fixed functional appliances or by orthodontics followed by surgical mandibular advancement. Methodology: A prospective study was designed on young adults with Class II malocclusion on account of a deficient mandible. A total of 45 subjects were divided into three groups of 15 individuals each. The patients were treated either by camouflage, fixed functional appliances or by orthognathic surgery. Pre and post treatment cephalograms were used to assess the skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes. Pre and post treatment profile photographs were assessed on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by orthodontists, oral surgeons and laypersons. Results: Each group achieved a reduction in facial convexity, but the results obtained from the surgical group were more pronounced than the camouflage and the fixed functional group. Conclusion: The reduction in convexity in the camouflage group was by retracting the upper anteriors, which increases the nasolabial angle. In the fixed functional appliance a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes can be observed. However the most appropriate reduction in profile convexity can be obtained by combined orthodontic and surgical treatment of malocclusion.
