The treatment results showed good improvement in the facial profile.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Two methods for treating skeletal problems in adults are camouflage orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the fixed orthodontic treatment, the necessary decompensation treatment was applied to the patient who presented to our clinic with the complaint of retrusive mandible and was operated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The treatment results showed good improvement in the facial profile.
Two methods for treating skeletal problems in adults are camouflage orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. This case report aimed to present the successful treatment of an adult female patient with skeletal Class II malocclusion due to retrognathic mandible through orthognathic surgery. After the fixed orthodontic treatment, the necessary decompensation treatment was applied to the patient who presented to our clinic with the complaint of retrusive mandible and was operated. The dental and skeletal Class I relationship was achieved with functional occlusion after orthodontic and orthognathic surgery. The total treatment time was 23 months. The treatment results showed good improvement in the facial profile.
KAYADÜĞÜN, A., BUYUKCAVUS, M. H., FINDIK, Y., BAYKUL, T. (2022). Orthodontic-Surgical Treatment of a Skeletal Class II Malocclusion: A Case Report. Black Sea Journal of Health Science, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 295–299. https://ajindex.com/articles/745232
Arnett GW, Gunson MJ. 2004. Facial and dental planning for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 126(3): 290-295.
Bacetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. 2000. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 118: 159-170.
Bauer RE. III, Ochs MW. 2014. Maxillary orthognathic surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am, 26(4):523-537. Canıgür Bavbek N, Dinçer M. 2012. Sınır (Borderline) olgularda ortodontik kamuflaj tedavisinin kararlaştırılmasına etki eden faktörler. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni, 5: 44-51.
Casas MB, Valdivia IG. 2017. Orthodontic-surgical treatment of a class II division 1 patient. Case report. Revista Mexicana de Ortodon, 5(4): 240-248
Conley RS, Jernigman C. 2006. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar ex- traction in class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod, 1: 59-65.
Demir A, Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci FA. 2005. Effects of camouflage treatment on dentofacial structures in Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathic patients. Eur J Orthod, 27(5): 524-531.
Kinzinger G, Frye L, Diedrich P. 2009. Class II treatment in adults: comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery-a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop, 70: 63-91.
Lee KY, Park JH, Tai K, Chae JM. 2016. Treatment with twin-block appliance followed by fixed appliance therapy in a growing Class II patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 150(5): 847-863.
Marchetti C, Pironi M, Bianchi A, Musci A. 2009. Surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion vs segmental Le Fort I osteotomy: Transverse stability over a 2-year period. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 37: 74-78.
Mihalik CA, Proffit WR, Ceib Philips. 2003. Long-term follow-up of Class II adults treated with orthodontic camouflage: A comparison with orthognathic surgery outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 23: 266-278. Pancherz H. 2000. Dentofacial orthopedics or orthognathic surgery: is it a matter of age? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 117: 571-574.
Proffit WR, Ackerman JL. 1994. Diagnosis and treatment planning. In: Gra-ber M, Vanarsdall RL. Jr, editors. Orthodontics: current principals and treatment. Mosby, St Louis, MO, 4th ed., pp. 1232. Proffit WR, Fields HR Jr, Sarver DM. 2007. Diagnosis and treatment planning in contemporary orthodontics: orthodontic treatment planning: Limitations, controversies, and special problems. Mosby, St Louis, MO, 4th ed., pp. 302-307.