English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems that can be divided into class II division 1 and division 2. Considering the differences between the 2 malocclusions, the present study was designed to compare the dentoskeletal changes caused by growth modification treatment. Methods: This retrospective study included 52 patients (2 groups) with class II division 1 and 2 malocclusions, who were within the age range of 11-13 years and were treated by growth modification. Initial and final cephalograms were analyzed by Dolphin software premium 11.8. In addition, 7 cephalometric variables including SNA, SNB, ANB, SN-GOGN, inter-incisal angle, mandibular body length, and overbite were measured in traced cephalograms. Finally, treatment changes in each group were analyzed by paired t test and between-group comparison was assessed by independent t test. The significant level was considered as 0.05. Results: Based on the results of dentoskeletal changes in both groups, SNB, ANB, mandibular length, and overbite underwent significant changes during treatment in both groups. Further, the interincisal angle changed significantly in division 2 group (P<0.0001) and the final interincisal angle decreased significantly in class II division 1 patients (P<0.025). The results further revealed that changes in SNB and interincisal angles were statistically significantly greater in division 2 group compared to division 1 group (P<0.021 and P<0.012, respectively). Finally, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the other variables. Conclusions: Overall, mandibular position changes more in class II division 2 patients and the treatment appears to be more successful in this group.

Is There Any Difference in the Outcome of Growth Modification Treatment Between Class II Division 1 and 2 Malocclusions?