SpringerLink
Log in

Growth Modification Treatment in Class II Malocclusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Orthodontic Evidence

  • 448 Accesses

Abstract

Class II malocclusion results from discriminately jaws position or/and teeth. Class II malocclusion is described by prominent upper front teeth that are mostly associated with a distal molar relationship. In terms of skeletal relationship, Class II malocclusion can be accompanied by a prognathic maxilla, a retrognathic mandible, or a combination of both. In growing individuals, orthodontists are concerned about facial growth besides the correction of dental problems. Many methods have been developed to provide a favorable environment for mandible growth or restrict the maxillary growth for achieving facial harmony in patients with Class II skeletal relationship. Different functional and orthopedic appliances have been used for this purpose; fixed functional appliances like Herbst and removable functional appliances like twin block and headgear. Growth modification treatment can affect skeletal and dental components, as well as soft tissues. TSADs have been recently used in anchoring the fixed functional appliances or in delivering force directly to the jaws to decrease the dental effects of the functional appliances.

This chapter will cover the most interesting topics in Class II growth modification treatment and will also present important evidence to answer most important clinical situtations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dental press. J Orthod. 2018;23(6):40:e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Batista KB, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3(3):CD003452.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Bernhold M. Repelling magnets versus superelastic nickel-titanium coils in simultaneous distal movement of maxillary first and second molars. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(3):189–98. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0189:rmvsnc>2.0.co;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bondemark L, Kurol J. Distalization of maxillary first and second molars simultaneously with repelling magnets. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14(4):264–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Samson GS, Hechtkopf MJ. Supervision of class II discrepancies. Pediatric Dentisitry. 1988;10(4):331–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bondi M. Lower body mesialization, upper distalization or combined therapy of the distal bite with horizontal growth. Mondo Ortod. 1979;4(1):24–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen QV, Bezemer PD, Habets L, Prahl-Andersen B. A systematic review of the relationship between overjet size and traumatic dental injuries. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(5):503–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.5.503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Logn JR, Casamassimo PS. Corrective methods for Class II patients. Pediatr Dent. 1988;10(4):342−4. PMID: 3272961.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vaid NR, Doshi VM, Vandekar MJ. Class II treatment with functional appliances: a meta-analysis of short-term treatment effects. Semin Orthod. 2014;20(4):324–38. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2014.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Batista KB, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:Cd003452. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(2):170–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tulloch JFC, Phillips C, Proffit WR. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class H malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(4):391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tulloch JFC, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Influences on the outcome of early treatment for class H malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(5):533–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tulloch JFC, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early class II treatment: Progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113(1):62–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Casutt C, Pancherz H, Gawora M, Ruf S. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(6):614–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Perinetti G, Primozic J, Franchi L, Contardo L. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in pre-pubertal and pubertal class II patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Davies L, Connolly I, et al. Early treatment for class II division 1 malocclusion with the twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2009;135(5):573–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tulloch JFC, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;125(6):657–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: psychosocial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124(5):488–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Brien Kevin TM, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Birnie D, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Hammond M, Harradine N, Lewis D, Littlewood S, McDade C, Mitchell L, Murray A, O’Neill J, Sandler J, Read M, Robinson S, Shaw I, Turbill E. Early treatment for class II malocclusion and perceived improvements in facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(5):580–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Szemraj A, Wojtaszek-Slominska A, Racka-Pilszak B. Is the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method effective enough to replace the hand-wrist maturation (HWM) method in determining skeletal maturation?-a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2018;102:125–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Santiago RC, de Miranda Costa LF, Vitral RW, Fraga MR, Bolognese AM, Maia LC. Cervical vertebral maturation as a biologic indicator of skeletal maturity. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(6):1123–31. https://doi.org/10.2319/103111-673.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124(3):234–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00352-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kyburz KS, Eliades T, Papageorgiou SN. What effect does functional appliance treatment have on the temporomandibular joint? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0286-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ivorra-Carbonell L, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Bellot-Arcis C. Impact of functional mandibular advancement appliances on the temporomandibular joint - a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(5):e565–72. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.21180.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pancherz H, Michailidou C. Temporomandibular joint growth changes in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent Herbst subjects A long-term roentgenographic cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 2004;126(2):153–61; quiz 254–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.07.015.

  27. Perillo L, Cannavale R, Ferro F, Franchi L, Masucci C, Chiodini P, et al. Meta-analysis of skeletal mandibular changes during Frankel appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(1):84–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;129(5):599 e1-12:discussion e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tümer N, Gültan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;116(4):460–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70233-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Short-term anteroposterior treatment effects of functional appliances and extraoral traction on class II malocclusion. A meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(5):907–14. https://doi.org/10.2319/061706-244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(5):501–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.5.501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;113(1):104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70282-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Varlik SK, Gültan A, Tümer N. Comparison of the effects of twin block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(2):128–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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(6):663–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Flores-Mir C, Major PW. A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the activator and Bionator appliances in class II division 1 subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(6):586–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl034. Epub 2006 Nov 9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lange DW, Kalra V, Broadbent BH Jr, Powers M, Nelson S. Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the bionator. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(6):423–30. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0423:Cistpf>2.0.Co;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Maltagliati L, Henriques JF, Janson G, Almeida RR, Freitas MR. Influence of orthopedic treatment on hard and soft facial structures of individuals presenting with class II, division 1 malocclusion: a comparative study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004;12(2):164–70. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572004000200016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pacha MM, Fleming PS, Johal A. A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(6):621–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124(2):128–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00345-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of twin block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(2):164–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Madurantakam P. Fixed or removable function appliances for class II malocclusions. Evid Based Dent. 2016;17(2):52–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Elkordy SA, Aboelnaga AA, Fayed MM, AboulFotouh MH, Abouelezz AM. Can the use of skeletal anchors in conjunction with fixed functional appliances promote skeletal changes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(5):532–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Elkordy SA, Abouelezz AM, Fayed MMS, Aboulfotouh MH, Mostafa YA. Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus fatigue resistant device in skeletal class II growing subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(3):391–403. https://doi.org/10.2319/062018-468.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Manni A, Migliorati M, Calzolari C, Silvestrini-Biavati A. Herbst appliance anchored to miniscrews in the upper and lower arches vs standard Herbst: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2019;156(5):617–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Campbell C, Millett D, Kelly N, Cooke M, Cronin M. Frankel 2 appliance versus the modified twin block appliance for phase 1 treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2019;90(2):202–8. https://doi.org/10.2319/042419-290.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Banks P, Wright J, O’Brien K. Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126(5):583–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bock NC, von Bremen J, Ruf S. Stability of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):129–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT. Timing of class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2007;132(4):481–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.08.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Janson G, Sathler R, Fernandes TM, Branco NC, Freitas MR. Correction of class II malocclusion with class II elastics: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2013;143(3):383–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Aras I, Pasaoglu A. Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus fatigue resistant device vs intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(3):371–6. https://doi.org/10.2319/070216-518.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Parekh J, Counihan K, Fleming PS, Pandis N, Sharma PK. Effectiveness of part-time vs full-time wear protocols of twin-block appliance on dental and skeletal changes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2019;155(2):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Trenouth MJ, Desmond S. A randomized clinical trial of two alternative designs of twin-block appliance. J Orthod. 2012;39(1):17–24. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653121226788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Yaqoob O, Dibiase AT, Fleming PS, Cobourne MT. Use of the Clark twin block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(2):363–9. https://doi.org/10.2319/041411-268.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Parkin NA, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2001;119(6):572–7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. van der Plas MC, Janssen KI, Pandis N, Livas C. Twin block appliance with acrylic cap** does not have a significant inhibitory effect on lower incisor proclination. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(4):513–8. https://doi.org/10.2319/102916-779.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DDS, SBO, Specialist Orthodontist, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic

    Samer Mheissen

  2. BDS, FCPS, FFDRCSI, Professor of Orthodontics, Lahore, Pakistan

    Haris Khan

Authors
  1. Samer Mheissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haris Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mheissen, S., Khan, H. (2023). Growth Modification Treatment in Class II Malocclusion. In: Orthodontic Evidence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24422-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24422-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24421-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24422-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation