Article

Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children

University Dental School and Hospital, Oral Health and Development, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2006; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005972.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Correction of the type of dental problem where the bite is deep and the upper front teeth are retroclined (Class II division 2 malocclusion) may be carried out using different types of orthodontic treatment. However, in severe cases, surgery to the jaws in combination with orthodontics may be required. In growing children, treatment may sometimes be carried out using special upper and lower dental braces (functional appliances) that can be removed from the mouth. In many cases this treatment does not involve taking out any permanent teeth. Often, however, further treatment is needed with fixed braces to get the best result. In other cases, treatment aims to move the upper first permanent molars backwards to provide space for the correction of the front teeth. This may be carried out by applying a force to the teeth and jaws from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to a part of a fixed or removable dental brace. This treatment may or may not involve the removal of permanent teeth. In some cases, neither functional appliances nor headgear are required and treatment may be carried out without extraction of any permanent teeth. Instead of using a headgear, in certain cases, the back teeth are held back in other ways such as with an arch across or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth which links two bands glued to the back teeth. Often in these cases, two permanent teeth are taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side) to provide room to correct the upper front teeth. It is important for orthodontists to find out whether orthodontic treatment only, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment only involving extraction of permanent teeth.
To establish whether orthodontic treatment, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion, produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving removal of permanent teeth.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the main international orthodontic journals was updated to April 2006. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. International researchers, likely to be involved in Class II division 2 clinical trials, were contacted to identify any unpublished or ongoing trials.
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.
Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.
No RCTs or CCTs were identified that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.
It is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.

2 Followers
 · 
655 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIM: To analyze the influence of skeletal maturity on Herbst multibracket (MB) treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions and its stability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Class II division 2, fully erupted premolars and canines, Class II molar relationship ≥1/2 cusp widths bilaterally or 1 cusp width unilaterally, retention period ≥24 months). According to pretreatment hand wrist skeletal maturity the subjects were assigned to the groups EARLY (n=9), LATE (n=14) and ADULT (n=14). Lateral headfilms (T1: before treatment, T2: after Herbst MB treatment, T3: after retention) were analyzed using the Sagittal-Occlusal analysis and standard cephalometrics. RESULTS: During Herbst MB treatment (T2-T1), significant (p<0.001) molar relationship improvement was seen in all groups (EARLY: 3.6 mm; LATE: 3.7 mm; ADULT: 3.2 mm). The amount of skeletal effects contributing to molar correction varied markedly between the groups (EARLY: 19%; LATE: 62%; ADULT: 31%). Improvement (p<0.01) was also seen for ssNB angle (EARLY: 1.8°; LATE: 1.8°; ADULT: 0.9°) and overbite (EARLY: 3.3 mm; LATE: 4.5 mm; ADULT: 4.3 mm). During retention (T3-T2), minimal changes of molar relationship (<0.2 mm) and ssNB angle (<0.5°) were seen in all groups. Also the overbite relapsed (EARLY: 0.5 mm; LATE: 1.0 mm; ADULT: 1.1 mm) only to a clinically irrelevant extent. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of skeletal maturity, Herbst MB treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions showed to be successful and stable. However, the LATE group showed the highest amount of skeletal effects contributing to the correction of the molar relationship.
    Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 05/2013; DOI:10.1007/s00056-013-0139-y · 0.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundSplit-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are popular in oral health research. Meta-analyses frequently include trials of both split-mouth and parallel-arm designs to derive combined intervention effects. However, carry-over effects may induce bias in split- mouth RCTs. We aimed to assess whether intervention effect estimates differ between split- mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same questions.MethodsWe performed a meta-epidemiological study. We systematically reviewed meta- analyses including both split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs with binary or continuous outcomes published up to February 2013. Two independent authors selected studies and extracted data. We used a two-step approach to quantify the differences between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs: for each meta-analysis. First, we derived ratios of odds ratios (ROR) for dichotomous data and differences in standardized mean differences (∆SMD) for continuous data; second, we pooled RORs or ∆SMDs across meta-analyses by random-effects meta-analysis models.ResultsWe selected 18 systematic reviews, for 15 meta-analyses with binary outcomes (28 split-mouth and 28 parallel-arm RCTs) and 19 meta-analyses with continuous outcomes (28 split-mouth and 28 parallel-arm RCTs). Effect estimates did not differ between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs (mean ROR, 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.52–1.80; mean ∆SMD, 0.08, -0.14–0.30).ConclusionsOur study did not provide sufficient evidence for a difference in intervention effect estimates derived from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs. Authors should consider including split-mouth RCTs in their meta-analyses with suitable and appropriate analysis.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 05/2014; 14(1):64. DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-14-64 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To ensure evidence-based decision-making in pediatric oral health, Cochrane systematic reviews that address topics pertinent to this field are necessary. We aimed to identify all systematic reviews of paediatric dentistry and oral health by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), summarize their characteristics and assess their methodological quality. Our second objective was to assess implications for practice in the review conclusions and provide an overview of clinical implications about the usefulness of paediatric oral health interventions in practice. We conducted a methodological survey including all paediatric dentistry reviews from the COHG. We extracted data on characteristics of included reviews, then assessed the methodological quality using a validated 11-item quality assessment tool (AMSTAR). Finally, we coded each review to indicate whether its authors concluded that an intervention should be implemented in practice, was not supported or was refuted by the evidence, or should be used only in research (inconclusive evidence). We selected 37 reviews; most concerned the prevention of caries. The methodological quality was high, except for the assessment of reporting bias. In 7 reviews (19%), the research showed that benefits outweighed harms; in 1, the experimental intervention was found ineffective; and in 29 (78%), evidence was insufficient to assess benefits and harms. In the 7 reviews, topical fluoride treatments (with toothpaste, gel or varnish) were found effective for permanent and deciduous teeth in children and adolescents, and sealants for occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars. Cochrane reviews of paediatric dentistry were of high quality. They provided strong evidence that topical fluoride treatments and sealants are effective for children and adolescents and thus should be implemented in practice. However, a substantial number of reviews yielded inconclusive evidence.
    BMC Oral Health 04/2014; 14(1):35. DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-14-35 · 1.15 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
170 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014