Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
3160454 Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section) 2010 9 Pages PDF
Abstract

To evaluate the nature of Class II correction with MPA-IV in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Twenty-five subjects in the age range of 10–12 years were chosen for the study. The subjects were divided among control group (n=10) and treatment group (n=15). Prefollow-up and postfollow-up lateral cephalograms of control subjects, and pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of the treatment subjects, were traced manually and sUbjected to the pitchfork analysis. MPA-IV signiflcantly restricted the forward growth of maxilla (p<0.05). The appliance had no effect on the mandibular growth enhancetnent. Sagittal skeletal relationship improvement was significantly more in the treatment group subjects (p<0.01). Distul movcmcnt of the maxillary dentoalveolar segments, mesial movement of the mandibular dentoalveolar segments, Class II molar correction and overjet correction were Significantly more in the treatment subjects (p<0.001).Conclusions: Mandibular protraction appliance IV was an effective fixed functional appliance in the correction of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. However, subjects who can tolerate greater dentoalveolar compensation for the correction of their Class II malocclusion are best tronted with mandibular protraction appliance IV.

Related Topics
Health Sciences Medicine and Dentistry Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine