Active clinical trials for "Malocclusion, Angle Class II"

Primary Objective Evaluating the effectiveness of canine retraction in terms of: rate of movement and rotation using 0.020-inch slot and dual-slot systems in comparison with the 0.022-inch slot system. Secondary Objectives Measuring the amount of molar anchorage loss during canine retraction between the different bracket slot appliances. Evaluation of alignment efficiency using different bracket slot appliances. Null Hypothesis There is insignificant difference in the effectiveness of canine retraction with different bracket slot size appliances. • Evaluation of the bracket slot and archwire dimensions precision

this is a controlled clinical trial with 2 groups of patients of class II skeletal discrepancy due to mandibular retrusion one group is treated with twin block functional appliance and the other with twin block combined with low level laser therapy ,the study aims to detect the effect of low level laser on the skeletal outcomes , dentoalveolar outcomes, rate of correction and pain during treatment

Patients with skeletal class II malocclusion who have a retracted lower jaw will be treated in this study. The efficacy of clear Plates in the treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion will be assessed. The skeletal, dental and soft tissues changes resulted by this intervention will be studied and compared with the results of Traditional treatment with fixed appliances.

Rationale: Class II Division 1 malocclusion is characterized by upper anterior teeth protrusion resulting in upper lip protrusion and convex facial profile, which are considered esthetically unfavorable. Treatment of class II malocclusion due to maxillary protrusion can be done with bilateral maxillary first premolar extraction followed by en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth using mini implants placed between maxillary 2nd premolar & 1st molar. Treatment of class II malocclusion due to maxillary protrusion without premolar extraction frequently requires distalization of maxillary molars into Class I molar relation by means of extra-oral or intraoral forces. Absolute skeletal anchorage, available 24 hours a day is an alternative method for molar distalization. Zygomatic miniplates fixed at a distance from the root apices, allows distalization of entire dentition as there is no interference between the fixation device and roots of the teeth. Aims and Objectives: To quantify root resorption seen with bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars (followed by en - masse retraction of anterior teeth) vs full arch distalization with zygomatic miniplates in Class II Division I malocclusion. Method of study: Patients will be allocated randomly to 2 groups-G1 and G2. Patients in G1 will undergo bilateral maxillary 1st premolar extraction before bonding followed by leveling & alignment. Maxillary arch will be stabilized with the help of 0.019"×0.025" stainless steel wire. Hooks will be soldered on archwire used for stabilizing dentition. Mini implants will be placed under local anaesthesia between maxillary 2nd premolar & 1st molar. Ni-Ti closed coil spring will be used to apply a force for en masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth . In G2, treatment will be initiated by bonding 0.022" slot MBT preadjusted edgewise appliance. Maxillary arch will be stabilized with the help of 0.019"×0.025" stainless steel wire. Zygomatic miniplates will be placed bilaterally. Hooks will be soldered on archwire used for stabilizing dentition. Ni-Ti closed coil spring will be used to apply a force .

The purpose of this study is to determine if the Herbst appliance with indirect skeletal anchorage in mini-implants is capable of preventing excessive inclination of the lower incisors at the end of the treatment when compared to the Herbst appliance with dental anchorage and Twin-Block appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion and overjet ≥ 6 mm.

In this study the investigators are going to compare the predictability of the backward movement of upper first molars in patients with the upper dentition more advanced than the lower dentition. The investigators are going to study if the movements that they predict are achieved and in which proportion and compare it between four different aligner systems. The investigators hypothesis is that there are no differences in the predictability of this movement between the four aligner systems.

The aim of this study is to compare the treatment results when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion using the Van Beek-Headgear Activator combination (vBHGA) appliance versus using the Andresen activator.

This clinical study will be directed to compare the effect of presence or absence of third molar on distalization of the upper posterior segment by using carriere motion appliance

Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) was designed to correct a Class II molar relationship into a Class I relationship by distalizing the whole posterior maxillary segment by means of class II elastics and mandibular anchorage. To revoke the adverse effects of CMA with class II elastics, we can use the CMA to distalize the maxillary posterior segment with TADs anchorage using miniscrews. The aim of this study is to evaluate TADs anchored CMA vs. conventionally anchored CMA for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment.

There is currently no information on how mandibular advancement therapy could influence three-dimensionally the condylar and mandibular morphology in growing patients affected by Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). Therefore, the aim is to assess the three-dimensional morphological mandibular changes produced by the Invisalign® Mandibular Advancement (MA) (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA) in growing subjects affected by juvenile idiopathic arthritis with unilateral and bilateral JIA and to compare them with not-JIA control subjects