Clinical characteristics and X-rays of class II maloclusions skeletal with extraction premolars at Hanoi Central Odonto-Stomatology Hospital

  • Trần Thị Kim Liên Bệnh viện Quân Y 103
  • Võ Thị Thúy Hồng Bệnh viện Răng Hàm Mặt Trung ương Hà Nội
  • Phạm Thị Thu Hằng Bệnh viện Trung ương Quân đội 108

Main Article Content

Keywords

Class II skeletal maloclusion, hyperdivergent, hypodivergent, normodivergent., normodivergent, clinical characteristics, cephalometric radiography

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate clinical characteristics and X-rays of class II malocclusions hyperdivergent patients at Ha Noi Central Odonto-Stomatology Hospital. Subject and method: Descriptive study by evaluate pre-treatment clinical characteristics and cephalometric radiography of 69 class II malocclusion skeletal with extraction premolars patients (hypodivergent group had 12 patients, hyperdivergent group had 27 patients, normodivergent group had 30 patients) at Department of Orthodontics of Ha Noi Central Odonto- Stomatology Hospital to September 2022 were recuited. Result: The average of age was 24.5 (range in 14 to 53). 100% protruding face type, lower face of hypodivergent group were short, lower face of  hyperdivergent group were long, lower face of normodivergent group were normal. Hypodivergent group had SNA 87.83 ± 4.31°, SNB 81.96 ± 4.08°, ANB 5.79 ± 1.32°, GoGnSN 25.17 ± 2.65° decreased, NBaPtGn 89.8 ± 3.39° increased, ANS-Me 61.17 ± 7.75mm decreased. The inclination of upper incisor in relations with cranial base 109.35 ± 8.53° increased, base 118.17 ± 10.17° increased, angle between upper and lower incisors were sharp 112.3 ± 10.41°. Nasolabial angle was sharp 90.00 ± 11.35°, upper and lower lips were protrusive in relations with E-line (2.08 ± 1.82mm, 3.25 ± 3mm) increased. Hyperdivergent group had SNA 80.06 ± 14.59°, SNB 75.94 ± 2.82°,ANB 6.87 ± 1.92°, GoGnSN 40.22 ± 2.24° increased, NBaPtGn 81.4 ± 3.36° decreased, ANS-Me 65,33 ± 6,91mm increased. The inclination of upper incisor in relations with cranial base 118.17 ± 10.17° increased, angle between upper and lower incisors were sharp 111.71 ± 6.49°. Nasolabial angle was sharp 91.48 ± 12.57°, upper and lower lips were protrusive in relations with E-line (1.77±1.74 mm, 4.35 ± 2.11mm). normodivergent group had SNA 89.62 ± 15.31°, SNB 79.13 ± 2.2°, ANB 6.7 ± 1.61°, GoGnSN 33.92 ± 2.14°, NBaPtGn 84.15 ± 2.8°, ANS-Me 62.92 ± 5.93mm. The inclination of upper incisor in relations with cranial base 113.68 ± 7.53° increased, angle between upper and lower incisors were sharp 110.8 ± 9.11°. Nasolabial angle was sharp 89.62 ± 15.31°, upper and lower lips were protrusive in relations with E-line (2.43 ± 1.98mm, 4.4 ± 1.73mm) increased. Conclusion: Class II maloclusion skeletal patients with extraction premolars had protrusion, each group had different characteristics and X-rays: Hypodivergents had short lower face with low angle between mandibular related cranial base and facial angle increased, hyperdivergents had long lower face with high angle between mandibular related cranial base and facial angle decreased that means mandibular turn down and back so that influenced aesthetic face, normodivergents had specific class II skeletal maloclusion but normal vertical size of lower face.

Article Details

References

1. Nguyễn Hùng Hiệp (2021) Nghiên cứu một số chỉ số đầu mặt ở trẻ em Việt Nam 12 tuổi để ứng dụng trong điều trị y học. Ngày công bố: 13/01/2021.
2. Đặng Thị Thu Hương (2020) Nhu cầu đièu trị nắn chỉnh răng và một số yếu tố liên quan của học sinh trong độ tuổi từ 12-15 tại Hà Nội. Luận văn Thạc sĩ, Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội.
3. Dhakal J, Shrestha M, Shrestha M, Acharya AJOJoN (2019) Comparison of knowledge and attitude towards orthodontic treatment among high school students. Orthodontic Journal of Nepal 9(2): 61-65.
4. Dyken RA, Sadowsky PL, Hurst D (2001) Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index. Angle Orthod 71(3): 164-169.
5. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ (1989) Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95(3): 220-230.
6. Chandrasekar R, Chandrasekhar S, Sundari KKS, Ravi P (2020) Development and validation of a formula for objective assessment of cervical vertebral bone age. Prog Orthod 21(1): 1-8.
7. McNamara JA Jr, Peterson JE Jr, Alexander RG (1996) Three-dimensional diagnosis andmanagement of class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. P Semin Orthod 97(3): 222-230.
8. Nguyễn Thị Bích Ngọc (2003) Nhận xét và đánh giá hiệu quả lâm sàng điều trị lệch lạc khớp cắn Angle II do lùi xương hàm dưới bằng hàm chức năng Hà Nội: Răng hàm mặt. Đại học Y Hà Nội.
9. Booij JW, Kuijpers‐Jagtman AM, Bronkhorst EM, et al (2021) Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment with extraction of maxillary first molars: Evaluation of treatment and post‐treatment changes by the PAR Index. Orthod Craniofac Res 24(1): 102-110.
10. Olkun HK, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Uçkan S (2019) Orthognathic surgery treatment need in a Turkish adult population: A retrospective study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(11): 1881. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16111881.
11. Rogers K, Campbell PM, Tadlock L, Schneiderman E, Buschang PH (2018) Treatment changes of hypo-and hyperdivergent Class II Herbst patients. Angle Orthod 88(1): 3-9. doi: 10.2319/060117-369.1.
12. Paik C-H, Ahn H-W, Yu H, Park JHJA-DCC (2022) Orthodontic retreatment for vertical control in a patient with skeletal Class II long face. AJO-DO Clinical Companion 3(1): 30-42.