Class II malocclusion, Index for orthodontic treatment need, Malocclusion
Citation Information :
Garg H, Khatria H, Kaldhari K, Singh K, Purwar P, Rukshana R. Intermolar and Intercanine width Changes among Class I and Class II Malocclusions Following Orthodontic Treatment. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (S1):S4-S9.
Introduction: Arch width discrepancy is important to predict treatment outcome as it affects the space availability and stability of dentition. Negligence to maintain arch form has been recognized as a prime cause of relapse.
Aim and objective: To assess the differences in intermolar and intercanine distances among class I, class II division 1, and class II division 2 malocclusion following orthodontic treatment.
Materials and methods: The study was performed on models of pre- and posttreatment from records of 100 patients visiting the Department of Orthodontics, MMCDSR using a digital Vernier caliper to measure intermolar and intercuspid distance. The sample comprised of both male and female patients of age group 14–25 years divided into three different groups, group I—class I malocclusion, group II—class II division 1 malocclusion, and group III—class II division 2 malocclusion. The results obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Group II showed higher pretreatment intercanine width than group I whereas group III had lower pretreatment intercanine width than both group I and group II. Group I showed higher pretreatment intermolar width than group II. Pretreatment intercanine width was higher in group II compared with group I whereas it was lower for group III when compared with group I for the mandible.
Adil M, Adil S, Syed K, et al. Comparison of Inter premolar, molar widths and arch depth among different malocclusions. Pakistan Oral Dent J 2016;36(2):241.
Patel D, Mehta F, Patel N, et al. Evaluation of arch width among class I, class II division I, class II division 2, class III malocclusion in Indian population. Contemp Dent 2015;6(Suppl 1):S202–S209. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.166842.
Adamek A, Minch L, et al. Intercanine width – review of the literature. Dent Med Probl 2015;52:336–340.
Barreto MS, Faber J, Vogel CJ, et al. Reliability of digital orthodontic setups. Angle Orthodontist 2015;86(2):255–259. DOI: 10.2319/120914-890.1.
Deogade SC, Mantri SS, Sumathi K, et al. The relationship between innercanthal dimension and interalar width to the intercanine width of maxillary anterior teeth in central Indian population. J Indian Prosthodon Soc 2015;15(2):91. DOI: 10.4103/0972-4052.155028.
Ward DE, Workman J, Brown R, et al. Changes in arch width: a 20-year longitudinal study of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthodontist 2006;76(1):6–13. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0006:CIAW]2.0.CO;2.
Sayin MO, Turkkahraman H. Comparison of dental arch and alveolar widths of patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion and subjects with class I ideal occlusion. Angle Orthod 2004;74(3):356–360. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2.
Walkow TM, Peck S. Dental arch width in class II division 2 deep-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2002;122(6):608–613. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.129189.
Braun S, Hnat WP, Fender DE, et al. The form of the human dental arch. Angle Orthod 1998;68(1):29–36. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)0682.3.CO;2.
Bishara SE, Bayati P, Jakobsen JR. Longitudinal comparisons of dental arch changes in normal and untreated class II, division 1 subjects and their clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;110(5):483–489. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70054-9.
Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, et al. A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of mandibular arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;92(6):478–483. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90229-0.