Class II Subdivision Deep Bite Malocclousion Orthodontic Treatment: Case Report

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 3, 54 - 57, 01.09.2018

Ufuk Gökkaya Alev Aksoy

Abstract

The aim of
this case report; is to present the treatment of a female patient with skeletal
Class I, dental Class II subdivision associated with deep bite by the using of
Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) through a short period of fixed orthodontic  treatment. A 14-year 1-month old female
patient applied for treatment in our clinic with a cheef complain of dental
crowding.The radiographic and clinical examinations and evaluations showed no
skeletal anomalies of any kind. Instead dental class II subdivision anomaly
with increased over bite and moderate crowding had  been  identified.The
orthodontic treatment started with 0,018 slot straight wire Roth brackets
applied for both the upper and the lower teeth. After 5 months for both jaws a
0,016 x 0,022 stainless steel wire had been applied. After that the intrusion
of the incisiveteeth had been achieved by using CIA. In order to achieve a
Class I molar and canine relationship, Class II elastics had been used at the
end of the treatment. A case with a Dental class II subdivision with increased
over bite was treated through a 10,5month of treatment and dental  class I relationship with normal overbite and
overjet and good occlusion achieved  at
the end of the treatment.

Keywords

Deepbite, Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA), Intrusion

SINIF II SUBDİVİZYON DERİN ÖRTÜLÜ KAPANIŞ MALOKLUZYONUNUN ORTODONTİK TEDAVİSİ: VAKA RAPORU

Abstract

Bu vaka raporunun amacı; iskeletsel Sınıf I, dişsel Sınıf II subdivizyon ve derin örtülü kapanışa sahip olan kız hastanın Connecticut İntruzyon Arkı (CIA) ile kısa süreli sabit ortodontik tedavisini içeren olguyu sunmaktır. Kliniğimize 14 yıl 1 aylık kız hasta çapraşıklık şikayetiyle başvurdu. Yapılan klinik ve radyografik değerlendirmede iskeletsel herhangi bir problem olmadığı, dişsel sınıf II subdivizyon anomali, artmış overbite ve orta derecede çapraşıklık saptandı. Tedaviye alt ve üst dişlere 0.018 slotrothstraightwire braketler uygulanarak başlandı. Her iki
çenede de 0.016x0.022 paslanmaz çelik arklara 5 ayda geçildi. Daha sonra Connecticut intruzyon arkı ile kesici dişlerin intruzyonu gerçekleştirildi. Son olarak sınıf II elastiklerle sınıf I molar ve kanin ilişki sağlandı. Sonuç olarak dişsel sınıf II subdivizyon, artmış overbite olan vakada 10.5 aylık tedavi sonucunda dişsel sınıf I ilişkilerle birlikte normal overbite ve overjete sahip iyi bir okluzyon sağlanmıştır.

Keywords

Derin örtülü kapanış, Connecticut intruzyon arkı (CIA), İntrüzyon

References

• Amasyalı M, Sağdıç D, Ölmez H, Akın E, Karaçay Ş. 2005. Intrusive effect of Connecticut intrusion arch and the utility intrusion arch. Turk J. Med. Sci, 35: 407-415.
• Arvystas MG. 1990. Nonextraction treatment of severe class II, division 2 malocclusions. Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 97(6): 510-521.
• Bishara SE, Jamison JE, Peterson LC, DeKock WH. 1981. Longitudinal changes in standing height and mandibular parameters between the ages of 8 and 17 years. Am J Orthod, 80(2): 115-135.
• Burstone CR. 1977. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod, 72(1): 1-22.
• Burstone CJ. 1980. Variable-modulus orthodontics. Am J Orthod, 80:1-16.
• Engel G, Cornforth G, Damerell JM, Gordon J, Levy P, McAlpine J. et al. 1980. Treatment of deep-bite cases. Am J Orthod, 77(1): 1-13.
• Graber T. 1997. Functional Analysis. Graber T, Petrovic A, (Ed.). Dentofacial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances (s. 125-160). Baltimore, Boston: Mosby-Year Book, Inc
• Graber TM, Vanorsdall R, Vig K. 2000. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques, Third Edition St. Louis, Toronto, London: The C.V. Mosby. Comp.
• Kanomi, R. 1997. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod, 31(11): 763-767.
• Kim TW, Kim H, Lee SJ. 2006. Correction of deep overbite and gummy smile by using a mini-implant with a segmented wire in a growing class II division 2 patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 130(5): 676-685.
• Nanda R, Marzban R, Kuhlberg A. 1998. The Connecticut intrusion arch. J Clin Orthod, 32: 708-715.
• Nanda R. 2005. Management of Deep Overbite Malocclusion (chapter 7). Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics: Elsevier inc.
• Ohnishi H,Yagi T, Yasuda Y, Takada K. 2005. A mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage in a deep overbite case. Angle Orthod, 75(3): 444-452.
• Proffit WR, Fields HW, Ackerman JL, Bailey LJ, Tulloch JFC. 2000. Contemporary Orthodontics, Third Edition St. Louis, Toronto, London: The C.V. Mosby Comp.
• Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Guino CF, Hilgers JJ. 1979. Bioprogressive therapy book 1, Rocky Moun. Orthod.
• Şenışık NE. 2009. Derin kapanışlı kakaların implant ve intrüzyon arkları ile tedavilerinin karşılaştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Doktora tezi.
• Tausche E, Luck O, Harzer W. 2004. Prevalence of malocclusions in the early mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod, 26(3): 237-244.
• vanSteenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IH. 2006. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 129(5): 658-665.
• Walkow TM,Peck S. 2002. Dental arch width in class II division 2 deep-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 122(6): 608-613.