Rodríguez PEE, Ferrer TSA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 37-40
PDF size: 309.15 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Female patient of eight years and four months, with skeletal pattern of severe class II and 10 mm overjet, was treated with Bite-Block Centric as a vertical control method. After five months of therapy with fixed appliances of the first phase, vertical control and reduction of the deviations of the skeletal class were achieved. Subsequently continued with active treatment for 18 months, was discharged from the first phase when the treatment objectives such as alignment, leveling, overbite and overjet appropriate. Post-treatment records showed good joint stability, functional occlusion and an improvement in facial aesthetics. The post-treatment centric assembly demonstrates condylar stability with the use of Centric Bite-Block as a vertical control method.

REFERENCES

1. Kuster R, Ingervall B. The effect of treatment of skeletal open bite with two types of bite-blocks. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14 (6): 489-499.

2. Hakami Z. Molar intrusion techniques in orthodontics: a review. J Int Oral Health. 2016; 8 (2): 302-306.

3. Iscan HN, Sarisoy L. Comparison of the effects of passive posterior bite-blocks with different construction bites on the craniofacial and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112 (2): 171-178.

4. Kook YA, Bayome M, Trang VT, Kim HJ, Park JH, Kim KB et al. Treatment effects of a modified palatal anchorage plate for distalization evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146: 47-54.

5. Yu IJ, Kook YA, Sung SJ, Lee KJ, Chun YS, Mo SS. Comparison of tooth displacement between buccal mini-implants and palatal plate anchorage for molar distalization: a finite element study. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36: 394-402.

6. Owtad P, Park JH, Shen G, Potres Z, Darendeliler MA. The biology of TMJ growth modification: a review. J Dent Res. 2013; 92: 315-321.

7. Iscan HN, Akkaya S, Koralp E. The effects of spring loaded posterior bite-block on the maxilofacial morphology. Europ J Orthop. 1992; 14: 54-60.

8. Giuntini V, Vangelisti A, Masucci C, Defraia E, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. Treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance vs the Forsus fatigue resistant device in growing class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85: 784-789.

9. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 15-24.

10. Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116: 597-609.

11. 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. 2009; 135: 573-579.

12. Chintakanon K, Sampson W, Wilkinson T, Townsend G. A prospective study of twin-block appliance therapy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118: 494-504.