Thiruvenkatachari B Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Revs. 2013; 11
Hunt NP. Why should the NHS continue to fund orthodontic treatment in the current financial climate?. Royal College of Surgeons of England: Faculty Dental Journal. 2013; 4:16-19
Nguyen QV A systematic review of the relationship between overjet size and traumatic dental injuries. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21:503-515
Johal A, Cheung MY, Marcene W. The impact of two different malocclusion traits on quality of life. Br Dent J. 2007; 202
Rusanen J Quality of life in patients with severe malocclusion before treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32:43-48
de Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. Orthodontic treatment and its impact on oral health-related quality of life in Brazilian adolescents. J Orthod. 2004; 31:20-27
Kenealy P The psychological benefit of orthodontic treatment. Its relevance to dental health education. NY State Dent J. 1991; 57:32-34
Shaw WC, Addy M, Ray C. Dental and social effects of malocclusion and effectiveness of orthodontic treatment: a review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1980; 8:36-45
Seehra J, Newton JT, Dibiase AT. Interceptive orthodontic treatment in bullied adolescents and its impact on self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35:(5)615-621
Proffit WR, Tulloch JF. Preadolescent Class II problems: treat now or wait?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121:560-562
O'Brien K Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:573-579
Tulloch JF, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125:657-667
Wortham JR Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:65-74
O'Brien K Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:234-243
McDowall RJ, Waring DT. Class II growth modification: evidence of absence or absence of evidence. Orthod Update. 2010; 3:44-50
Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II − The soft tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20:663-684
Tumer N, Gultan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116:460-468
O'Brien K Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:128-137
Lee RT, Kyi CS, Mack GJ. A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29:272-282
Thiruvenkatachari B Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:144 e1-e9
Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104:153-161
Courtney M, Harkness M, Herbison P. Maxillary and cranial base changes during treatment with functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109:616-624
Ghafari J Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:51-61
Keeling SD Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:40-50
Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:698-699
Nelson B, Hansen K, Hagg U. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118:142-149
Nelson B A long-term follow-up study of Class II malocclusion correction after treatment with Class II elastics or fixed functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:499-503
Emami MS, Jamilian A, Showkatbakhsh A. The effect of anterior inclined plane treatment on the dentoskeletal of Class II division 1 patients. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2007; 25:130-132
Class II division 1: an evidence-based review of management and treatment timing in the growing patient Sophy K Barber Katherine E Forde Richard J Spencer Dental Update 2024 42:7, 707-709.
Authors
Sophy KBarber
BDS, MJDF, MSc, MOrth RCS(Ed)
Post-CST Registrar in Orthodontics, Leeds Dental Institute
Class II division 1 malocclusion is common and various methods have been suggested for successful treatment in the growing patient. A number of recent high-quality studies have been undertaken to assess the efficacy of these treatments. We aim to outline the existing best evidence that supports current practice, with a review of the effect of treatment timing on outcome. This will provide a sound evidence-base for General Dental Practitioners for assessing, advising and referring young patients for treatment.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: General Dental Practitioners should understand the management options and optimal time for treating growing patients with a Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Article
Class II division 1 is an incisal classification of malocclusion where the incisal edge of the mandibular incisors lie posterior to the cingulum plateau of the maxillary incisors with normal or proclined maxillary incisors (British Standards Index, 1983). There is always an associated increase in overjet (Figure 1). This malocclusion is common, with an estimated prevalence of 15–20%,1 although there is racial variation, with Class II division 1 more common in Caucasian than Latin American, Middle Eastern and Asian populations, and lowest in Black racial groups.2
A number of genetic and environmental factors may contribute to a Class II division 1 malocclusion:
A number of benefits have been associated with orthodontic treatment including a reduction in the susceptibility to caries, periodontal disease and temporomandibular joint dysfunction, whilst also improving speech and masticatory function. However, the supporting evidence is equivocal.3,4 It may be assumed that correction of an increased overjet will potentially reduce the risk of trauma, as it has been shown that individuals with an overjet greater than 3mm are twice as likely to suffer injury to their upper incisors.5 The meta-analysis undertaken in a recent Cochrane review found that ‘early orthodontic treatment for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective in reducing the incidence of incisal trauma than providing one course of orthodontic treatment when the child is in early adolescence’.2
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
