Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Figure 1. Mandibular
growth has been the
subject of much
conjecture in the
orthodontic community,
but is the real answer just
Impossible, right?
By Rohan Wijey, BOralH (DentSci), Grad.Dip.Dent (Griffith), OM
S
ince the 2007 Cochrane treatment with braces tends to be more
Review on Class II cor- retractive of the maxilla. Nonetheless, Don’t we need
rection, 1 the prevailing both approaches will result in reduction of to retract in some cases?
catch-cry has been that “you overjet and ANB angle. A slightly better
can’t grow mandibles”. The
fallacy of this blithe extrap-
olation lies in the fact that
cephalometric measurement would be
the facial angle (angle between Frankfort
horizontal plane and Nasion to Pogonion),
C lass II cases can comprise either a
retrognathic mandible, prognathic
maxilla, or both. However, Mcnamara
the main criteria used in the comparison to determine the final position of the man- found as early as 1981 in his publication
of early and late Class II correction was dible relative to the cranial base. Components of Class II malocclusion in
measurement of overjet (mm) and ANB As the dental community continues to children 8-10 years of age, that less than
angle (the cephalometric relationship of realise that their precious teeth are actually 4% of his Class II patients displayed a
the maxilla to the mandible). In no way do attached to a head and a body, everyone prognathic maxilla and this figure would
these measurements accurately compare has suddenly become more airway-con- be even less if we apply modern standards
the differences in mandibular “growth” scious. Most dentists and orthodontists of an acceptable SNA angle.2 Therefore,
between the two approaches. now realise that extraction and retraction the overwhelming majority of Class II
We do know that early treatment with orthodontics may leave the maxilla and cases demand not only development
functional appliances tends to be more mandible in a posterior position and may of the mandible, but also development
protrusive of the mandible, while later decrease oropharyngeal airway volume. of the maxilla.
Can we influence Therefore, there is no good evidence ered “highly stable”.4 However, after
mandibular length? that demonstrates these can translate this first year, as much as 20% of man-
the mandible. dibular advancement patients experience
Maybe. The available studies fall on both decrease in mandibular length. In their
sides of the fence. 2. Functional appliances systematic review, Joss et al. (2010)
found that 60% may experience relapse
Do we care?
T he largest systematic review (2015)
ever conducted into functional appli-
in the long-term and other studies put the
figure at 100%.5,6
4. Myofunctional appliances
Case 1
Case 2