Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S204
Submitted: 04-04-2022
Published: 04-04-2022

Ortho-surgical treatment in Class II skeletal patients with mandibular retrognathism: a concise systematic review

Dentistry Department, Quito, Ecuador; UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Dentistry Department, Quito, Ecuador; UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Class II malocclusion Orthodontics Surgery Mandibular retrognathism

Abstract

Introduction: In the setting of class II malocclusion corrections, the union of orthodontic and surgical procedures was developed. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy is standard protocol for correcting mandibular retrognathism. Class II dental malocclusion with deep bite needs to be treated early by orthodontics. Thus, the commonly used technique combines BSSO for mandibular advancement and recoil genioplasty to correct the resulting chin protrusion. Objective: To carry out a systematic review of the main considerations of ortho-surgical treatments in class II patients with mandibular retrognathism. Methods: Experimental and clinical studies (case reports, retrospective, prospective and randomized) with qualitative and/or quantitative analysis were included, following the rules of the systematic review-PRISMA. Results and Conclusion: A total of 128 articles was found involving class II malocclusion and ortho-surgical treatments. After, a total of 64 articles were fully evaluated and 24 were included and discussed in this study. A meta-analysis study evaluated the best functional appliance improving mandibular length in individuals with retrognathism. Sander Bite Jumping reported the greatest increase in mandibular length, with 3.40 mm. Another meta-analysis study compared dental, skeletal, and aesthetic outcomes between orthodontic camouflage and orthodontic-surgical treatment in patients with Class II skeletal malocclusion and retrognathic mandible with anterior growth. The difference between treatments was not statistically significant regarding SNA angle, linear measure of the lower lip to the Ricketts aesthetic line, convexity of the skeletal profile or soft tissue profile excluding the nose. In contrast, orthodontic-surgical treatment was more effective to the ANB, SNB and ML/NSL angles and the soft tissue profile including the nose.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Konopnicki S, Nicot R, Schlund M, Ferri J. Total Mandibular subapical osteotomy to correct Class II with inferior alveolar retrusion. Int Orthod. 2019 Mar;17(1):114-122. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.01.011. Epub 2019 Feb 14. PMID: 30772352.
  2. Scolozzi P, Herzog G. Total mandibular subapical osteotomy and Le Fort I osteotomy using piezosurgery and computeraided designed and manufactured surgical splints: a favorable combination of three techniques in the management of severe mouth asymmetry in Parry-Romberg syndrome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:991–9.
  3. Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Kaczynski R, Shunock M. Stability of skeletal Class II correction with 2 surgical techniques: the sagittal split ramus osteotomy and the total mandibular subapical alveolar osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:134–43.
  4. Chang J, Steinbacher D, Nanda R, Uribe F. "Surgery-First" Approach with Invisalign Therapy to Correct a Class II Malocclusion and Severe Mandibular Retrognathism. J Clin Orthod. 2019 Jul;53(7):397-404. PMID: 31648215.
  5. Tachiki C, Yamamoto M, Takaki T, Nishii Y. Surgical Orthodontic Treatment in Case of Severe High Angle Skeletal Class II Malocclusion and Mandibular Retrusion. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2020 Dec 16;61(4):243-253. doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.2020-0022. Epub 2020 Nov 10. PMID: 33177274.
  6. Woźniak K, Piątkowska D, Szyszka-Sommerfeld L, Buczkowska-Radlińska J. Impact of functional appliances on muscle activity: a surface electromyography study in children. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2015;21:246–253. doi: 10.12659/MSM.893111.
  7. Cevidanes LHS, Franco AA, Gerig G, et al. Assessment of mandibular growth and response to orthopedic treatment with 3-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:16–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.032.
  8. Cevidanes LHS, Franco AA, Gerig G, et al. Comparison of relative mandibular growth vectors with high-resolution 3-dimensional imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:27–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.033.
  9. Araujo AM, Buschang PH, Melo ACM. Adaptive condylar growth and mandibular remodelling changes with bionator therapy–an implant study. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:515–522. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.5.515.
  10. Malmgren O, Omblus J, Hägg U, Pancherz H. Treatment with an orthopedic appliance system in relation to treatment intensity and growth periods. A study of initial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91:143–151. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90472-0.
  11. Hägg U, Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopaedics in relation to chronological age, growth period and skeletal development. An analysis of 72 male patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod. 1988;10:169–176. doi: 10.1093/ejo/10.3.169.
  12. Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A, et al. Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013;16:116–126. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12013.
  13. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006.
  14. Santamaría-Villegas A, Manrique-Hernandez R, Alvarez-Varela E, Restrepo-Serna C. Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class II with retrognathism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Feb 1;17(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0339-8. PMID: 28148248; PMCID: PMC5289049.
  15. Raposo R, Peleteiro B, Paço M, Pinho T. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Apr;47(4):445-455. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 29. PMID: 28966066.
  16. Yüksel Coşkun E, Esenlik E. A Prospective Study Comparing Adolescent and Post-Adolescent Periods Regarding Effects of Activator Appliance in Patients with Class II Mandibular Retrognathia by Using 3dMDface Analysis and Cephalometry. Med Sci Monit. 2020 Jun 26;26:e921401. doi: 10.12659/MSM.921401. PMID: 32588836; PMCID: PMC7337095.
  17. Marsico E, Gatto E, Burrascano M, Matarese G, Cordasco G. Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:24–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.04.028.
  18. Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):113–126. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv034.
  19. D’Antò V, Bucci R, Franchi L, Rongo R, Michelotti A, Martina R. Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42:624–642. doi: 10.1111/joor.12295.
  20. Saikoski LZ, Cançado RH, Valarelli FP, de Freitas KM. Dentoskeletal effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Block appliance in a Brazilian sample: a prospective study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19:36–45. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.036-045.oar.
  21. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Haynes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030.
  22. Booij JW, Goeke J, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Ruf S. Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison. J Orofac Orthop. 2013;74:52–63. doi: 10.1007/s00056-012-0112-1.
  23. Haas DW, Martinez DF, Eckert GJ, Diers NR. Measurements of mandibular length: a comparison of articulare vs condylion. Angle Orthod. 2001;71:210–215.
  24. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:104–113. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4.

How to Cite

Schaffry López, S. M., Muñoz Falconi, M. V., Sant’ana, E., Moura Neto, G., & Moura, R. F. (2022). Ortho-surgical treatment in Class II skeletal patients with mandibular retrognathism: a concise systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S2). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S204