FEATURE This Article Has Been Peer Reviewed

FEATURE This article has been peer reviewed.

Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treated with a Cervical-Pull Headgear: A Case Report

By Ankit H. Shah, BDS, MDS (Orthod), MSD (Research)

Abstract: Orthodontic treatment for skeletal Class II malocclusion was undertaken with the aim of achieving orthopedic correction by modifying the growth pattern. A case of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion in the late mixed dentition was corrected to a Class I molar relationship by primarily using cervical-pull headgear. Cephalometric analysis indicated a reduction in the maxillo-mandibular discrepancy (ANB°) due to the correction of a skeletal Class II malocclusion to a Class I occlusion. The superimposition demonstrated that this was achieved by favorable growth of the mandible, control of maxillary first molars in an antero-posterior direction and retraction of maxillary incisors. Proclination of mandibular incisors was reduced. Significant improvement in the soft-tissue profile was noted. Key words: Class II malocclusion; cervical-pull headgear; orthopedic correction.

Introduction: The treatment of Class II malocclusions in growing patients can be accomplished by several different methods. One method involves the use of extraoral anchorage via a headgear for achieving orthopedic correction. Distal movement of maxillary molars can also be achieved simultaneously. The gained space from distalization can be used to retract the maxillary premolars, canines, and incisors into a Class I occlusion.1-4 This case report describes a 9-year-old female who presented with a ClassII Division 1 malocclusion and maxillary incisor proclination (Figures 1 and 2). The maxillary second molars were still in the tooth-bud stage when a cervical-pull headgear was delivered, and a mandibular lingual holding arch appliance was fitted (Figure 3).

Etiology and diagnosis Fig. 1 Pretreatment facial and intraoral photographs The patient had a brachycephalic facial form with incompetent lips and no significant facial asymmetries (Figure 1). Intraorally, she had Angle Class II molar relation on both sides (Figures 1 and 2). She had a 10-mm overjet, 50% overbite, mild mandibular crowding, and coincident maxillary and mandibular midlines. Soft tissue analysis revealed that she had normal upper lip, retrusive lower lip, and retrusive chin (Figure 1 and Table I). No abnormalities were noted on panoramic radiograph (Figure 3). Clinical examination did not reveal any temporomandibular joint problems. Periodontal health was found to be within normal limits. The pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiograph (Figure 4) and analysis (Table I) demonstrated a skeletal Class II malocclusion (A point, nasion, B point [ANB] = 7°). The maxillary Fig. 2 Pretreatment dental casts

IJO  VOL. 27  NO. 1  SPRING 2016 25 Table I: Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric analysis data

Measurement Pre-treatment Post-treatment SNA angle (°) 80 79 SNB angle (°) 73 76 ANB angle (°) 7 3 Wits appraisal (mm) 5 -1 FMA (°) 22 27 Figure 3: Pretreatment panoramic radiograph. SN-Go Gn (°) 32 26 Upper incisor to NA (mm) 5.5 2 Upper incisor to NA (°) 28 14.5 Lower incisor NB (mm) 6 4.5 Lower incisor to NB (°) 33 24 IMPA (°) 106 99 Interincisal angle (°) 112 138 Upper lip to E line (mm) 1 -2 Lower lip to E line (mm) 3 -2 ANB, A point, nasion, B point; FMA, Frankfort mandibular plane angle; Gn, gnathion; Go, gonial; IMPA, incisor to mandibular plane angle; NA, nasion point A; NB, nasion point B; SN, sella nasion; SNA, sella nasion point A; SNB, sella nasion point B.

Treatment Progress Treatment was initiated by delivering a cervical-pull Figure 4: Pre-treatment lateral cephalogram and tracing. headgear to the patient. Patient was instructed to wear it during incisors had a 28° angle relative to the nasion-point A line, the evening hours and night-time only. A force of 12-16 ounces and the mandibular incisors had a 106° angle relative to the (350 to 450 gm) was applied per side. A lingual holding arch mandibular plane. The Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) appliance was cemented in mandibular arch to preserve the ‘E’- of 22° and sella nasion (SN)-mandibular plane (GoGn) angle space. of 32° revealed the hypodivergent skeletal pattern. A 1-mm After 6-months of headgear wear, a Class I molar space requirement in the maxillary arch and a 3-mm space relationship was achieved on both sides. Pre-adjusted fixed requirement in the mandibular arch were found on study model appliances (0.022 × 0.028-inch, MBT system®) were placed analysis. in both arches. Initial leveling and alignment was carried out with 014 nitinol and 018 nitinol wires. Subsequently, 018 Treatment Objectives stainless steel wire with molar-stops was placed in the maxillary 1. Reduce maxillary incisor proclination arch to prevent any mesial movement of maxillary molars. 2. Relieve maxillary and mandibular crowding Pull from the transseptal fibers helped in the distal drifting of 3. Correct the Class II malocclusion and establish a Class I maxillary canines and premolars during this period. Complete molar and canine relationship distalization of maxillary canines and premolars was achieved 4. Achieve a well-intercuspated occlusion by using continuous arch wires and power chains. The headgear 5. Achieve ideal overbite and overjet wear was discontinued, and the mandibular lingual holding arch 6. Improve the soft-tissue profile and skeletally hypodivergent appliance was removed after 13 months of overall treatment. profile After a Class I canine relationship was achieved on both sides, 0.017× 0.025 inch TMA® (Beta-Titanium alloy) arch wire with Alternative Treatment Plans “tear-drop” loops was used in the maxillary arch to retract the The patient’s chief concern was “my front teeth stick anterior teeth. Detailing bends were placed in 0.018 stainless out too far.” Treatment alternatives for this case were: (1) steel wires to improve interdigitating of the teeth. Coordinated distalization of maxillary molars using a cervical-pull headgear, arch wires and settling elastics were used to gain maximum (2) distalization of maxillary molars using an intraoral intercuspation of the teeth. The orthodontic appliances were distalization appliance, (3) extraction of maxillary first premolars removed after 22 months of treatment. Hawley retainers were only, (4) extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular fabricated for retention in both arches. second premolars, and (5) fixed orthodontic treatment with growth modification by using a functional appliance. Treatment Results Due to the patient’s parents’ opposition to extraction The patient’s chief concern of maxillary incisor proclination of healthy teeth for orthodontic purposes and the patient’s was resolved while ideal overbite and overjet were achieved. willingness to wear a headgear, the use of a cervical-pull headgear Posterior occlusion was improved to a bilateral Class I molar was evaluated as a treatment plan option. This treatment plan relationship. Class I canine relationship was also achieved on was selected by patient and her parents. both sides (Figures 6 and 7).

26 IJO  VOL. 27  NO. 1  SPRING 2016 Maxillary growth was noted to be in a forward direction predominantly (Figure 10). Significant mandibular growth was also observed in a forward direction. Extrusion of maxillary first molars was noted, and mandibular first molars demonstrated significant compensatory mesial and occlusal movement as a response to skeletal mandibular growth. The maxillary incisors were retracted significantly as compared to their pre- treatment position. The mandibular incisors also showed reduction in their proclination (Figure 10). Facial esthetics were improved primarily due to the reduced convexity of the soft-tissue profile. Lower lip position improved significantly with respect to the E line (Figures 9 & 10 and Table I). Satisfactory root parallelism was achieved as noted on post-treatment panoramic radiograph (Figure 8). No Fig. 5 Progress facial and intraoral photographs temporomandibular joint problems were noted.

Case Retention The patient received Hawley retainers for maxillary and mandibular arches.

Discussion Several appliances are available for the correction of Class II malocclusion. Various intraoral molar distalization appliances have been described for non-compliant Class II patients.5-7 Compliance-dependent appliances such as headgears8 or functional appliances9-12 are recommended for the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions especially when growth modification is desired.13 A cervical headgear is made up of a neckstrap connected to a facebow. Extraoral force is applied to the maxillary first molars via a facebow, and a headcap or a neckstrap is used for anchorage. This appliance Fig 6. Post-treatment facial and intraoral photographs produces a distal and downward force against the maxillary teeth and the maxilla thereby causing extrusion of maxillary first molars.13 Due to the reduced lower anterior facial height and horizontal growth pattern of this patient, cervical direction was selected as the appropriate direction of pull of the headgear. Protrusive mandibular incisor position favored a headgear over functional appliance treatment in this case, as functional appliances tend to move mandibular incisors forward but headgear treatment does not.

Fig. 7 Post-treatment dental casts

IJO  VOL. 27  NO. 1  SPRING 2016 27 first molars. Similar findings were noted in this case also. They also observed that the overall results tend to indicate the efficacy of this treatment modality in the treatment of the Class II, Division 1 malocclusion.14 This case report confirms their observation.

Conclusions A cervical-pull headgear is an effective and non-invasive appliance for obtaining desired orthopedic effect. Skeletal Class I relation was achieved. Improvement in soft-tissue profile and decrease in facial convexity were noted due to a favorable Figure 8: Post-treatment panoramic radiograph. mandibular growth pattern. Patient presented pleasing smile esthetics at the completion of treatment.

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Dr. Darshit Shah and Dr. Khamir Patel for their technical assistance. Source of financial support: The author has no financial relationship to disclose.

References 1. Cetlin NM & Ten-Hoeve A. Nonextraction treatment. Clin Orthod 1983;17:396-413. 2. Giancotti A & Cozza P. Ni-Ti double loop system for molars distalization. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:215-21. 3. Gianelly AA, Vaitas AS, & Thomas WM. The use of magnets to move molars distally. Am J Orthod 1989;96:161-7. 4. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, & Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils to mover molars distally. Am J Orthod 1991;99:564-6. Figure 9: Post-treatment lateral cephalogram and tracing. 5. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:706-14. 6. Brickman CD, Sinha PK, & Nanda RS. Evaluation of the Jones jig appliance for distal molar movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:526-34. 7. Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. J Clin Orthod 1996;30:374-80. 8. Enoki C, Matsumoto MA, & Ferreira JT. Orthopedic cervical headgear in class II treatment: case report. Braz Dent J. 2003;14(1):63-6. Epub 2003 Jul 31. 9. Fränkel R. The treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with functional correctors. Am J Orthod 1969;55:265-75. 10. Fränkel R & Fränkel C. Orofacial orthopedics with the function regulator. Munich: S Karger; 1989. 11. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbstappliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979;76:423-42. 12. Clark WJ. The Twin-block technique: a functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod 1988;93:1-18. 13. Contemporary Orthodontics. In: Proffit WR, editor. th5 ed. St. Louis: Fig. 10 Superimposition Mosby; 2000. p. 507-11. 14. Cangialosi TJ, Meistrell ME Jr, Leung MA, Ko JY. A cephalometric Skeletal Class II correction is obtained as the mandible appraisal of edgewise Class II nonextraction treatment with extraoral force. grows forward normally while similar forward growth of the Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Apr:93(4):315-24. maxilla is restrained. Therefore, a favorable mandibular growth is a necessary part of the treatment response.13 In this case, a significant forward and downward direction of mandibular growth helped produce a successful outcome (Figure 10). Cangialosi et al14 performed a cephalometric appraisal Dr. Ankit H. Shah is engaged in private practice of the treatment effects of non-extraction edgewise therapy in Dallas, Texas USA. His primary research and combined with cervical headgear on Class II, Division 1 clinical interests include orthodontic miniscrew malocclusions. Their findings reported a significant inhibition implants and growth modification. He can be of forward growth of the maxilla, reduction of flaring of reached at [email protected]. the maxillary incisors, reduction of the facial convexity, and extrusion and mesial movement of maxillary and mandibular

28 IJO  VOL. 27  NO. 1  SPRING 2016