International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE S1 ( Special Issue (Pediatr Orthodont), 2021 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Introducing a Removable Orthodontic Appliance and Its Effects on Dental Arch Dimensions

Yasaman Bozorgnia, Shahin Mafinezhad, Pardis Pilehvar, Soheil Salari

Keywords : Anterior dental crossbite, Malocclusion, Mixed dentition

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2023

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-12-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Guiding anterior crossbite to a normal position is one of the most important responsibilities of a pediatric dentist or orthodontist to gain both esthetic and function. Crossbite with dental etiology can be treated by a variety of appliances. We describe a removable appliance with a different spring design for proclination of more than one incisor in mixed dentition. Materials and methods: This study is an observational study that was performed on sixteen children, 7–11 years of age, who needed incisor proclination in more than one tooth. In this study, patients were followed until the end of their orthodontic therapy. The variables evaluated were the maxillary arch length, arch depth, intercanine distance, and intermolar distance in pre- and posttreatment. To assess intra-examiner reliability, 10 plaster models were randomly selected and re-measured. Results: In all the cases, the newly designed removable appliance was used and in all showed a significant increase in arch length, arch depth, intercanine distance, and intermolar distance. The correction was achieved within 1–9 months depending on the patient's compliance. Conclusion: There was a significant increase in all aspects of arch length and depth after using this appliance. The procedure is a simple and effective method that is recommended for compliant patients needing proclination of more than one anterior tooth; especially in dental class III, pseudo-class III patients, and the first phase of class II division 2 skeletal treatments.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Al-Sehaibany F, White G. A three dimensional clinical approach for anterior crossbite treatment in early mixed dentition using an ultrablock appliance: case report. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;23(1):1–7.
  2. American Association of Orthodontists.2012. https://www.aaoinfo.org/system/files/media/documents/2012 AAO Glossary_0.doc.
  3. Shalish M, Gal A, Brin I, et al. Prevalence of dental features that indicate a need for early orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(4):454–459. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs011.
  4. Reddy ER, Manjula M, Sreelakshmi N, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion among 6 to 10 year old Nalgonda school children. J Int Oral Health 2013;5(6):49–54.
  5. Kaur H, Pavithra US, Abraham R. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in South Indian population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2013;3(2):97–102. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.122453.
  6. Singh SP, Kumar V, Narboo P. Prevalence of malocclusion among children and adolescents in various school of Leh Region. J Orth Endo 2015;1:1–6.
  7. Singh G. Management of crossbite. In: Textbook of orthodontics. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Publisher; 2015. pp. 655–670.
  8. Ustun K, Sari Z, Orucoglu H, et al. Severe gingival recession caused by traumatic occlusion and mucogingival stress: a case report. Eur J Dent 2008;2(2):127–133. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697367.
  9. Kiyak HA. Patients’ and parents’ expectations from early treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(4 Suppl):50–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.018.
  10. Thilander B, Lennartsson B. A study of children with unilateral posterior crossbite, treated and untreated, in the deciduous dentition. Occlusal and skeletal characteristics of significance in predicting the long-term outcome. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63(5):371–383. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-002-0210-6.
  11. Croll TP. Fixed inclined plane correction of anterior crossbite of the primary dentition. J Pedod 1984;9(1):84–94.
  12. Valentine F, Howitt JW. Implications of early anterior crossbite correction. ASDC J Dent Child 1970;37(5):420–427.
  13. Olsen CB. Anterior crossbite correction in uncooperative or disabled children. Case reports Aust Dent J 1996;41(5):304–309. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1996.tb03138.x.
  14. Mckeown HF, Sandlerd J. The two by four appliance: a versatile appliance. Dent Update 2001;28(10):496–500. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2001.28.10.496.
  15. Major PW, Glover K. Treatment of anterior cross-bites in the early mixed dentition. J Can Dent Assoc 1992;58(7):574–575.
  16. Yaseen SM, Acharya R. Hexa helix: modified quad helix appliance to correct anterior and posterior crossbites in mixed dentition. Case Rep Dent 2012;2012:860385. DOI: 10.1155/2012/860385.
  17. Ulusoy AT, Bodrumlu EH. Management of anterior dental crossbite with removable appliances. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4(2):223–226. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.114855.
  18. Jirgensone I, Liepa A, Abeltins A. Anterior crossbite correction in primary and mixed dentition with removable inclined plane (Bruckl appliance). Stomatologija 2008;10(4):140–144.
  19. Bayrak S, Tunc ES. Treatment of anterior dental crossbite using bonded resin-composite slopes: case reports. Eur J Dent 2008;2(4):303–306. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697397.
  20. Prakash P, Durgesh BH. Anterior crossbite correction in early mixed dentition period using catlan's appliance: a case report. ISRN Dent 2011;2011:298931. DOI: 10.5402/2011/298931.
  21. Abraham K, James A, Thenumkal E, et al. Correction of anterior crossbite using modified transparent aligners: an esthetic approach. Contemp Clin Dentis 2016;7(3):394–397. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.188577.
  22. Dean JA. Managing the developing occlusion. In: McDonald and Avery's dentistry for the child and adolescent. St. Louis, Mo, USA: Elsevier Publication; 2016. p. 415–478.
  23. Giancotti A, Mozzicato P, Mampieri G. An alternative technique in the treatment of anterior cross bite in a case of Nickel allergy: a case report. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2011;12(1):60–62.
  24. Sunil MM, Zareena MA, Ratheesh MS, et al. Early orthodontic interception of anterior crossbite in mixed dentition. JIOH 2017;9:88–90.
  25. Sockalingam SNMP, Khan KAM, Kuppusamy E. Interceptive correction of anterior crossbite using short-span wire-fixed orthodontic appliance: a report of three sases. Case Rep Dent 2018;2018:4323945. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4323945.
  26. Park JH, Kim TW. Anterior crossbite correction with a series of clear removable appliances: a case report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21(3):149–159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2009.00257.x.
  27. Sari S, Gokalp H, Aras S. Correction of anterior dental crossbite with composite as an inclined plane. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001;11(3):201–208. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2001.00256.x.
  28. Croll TP. Correction of anterior tooth crossbite with bonded resin-composite slopes. Quintessence Int 1996;27(1):7–10.
  29. Croll TP, Riesenberger RE. Anterior crossbite correction in the primary dentition using fixed inclined planes. II. Further examples and discussion. Quintessence Int 1988;19(1):45–51.
  30. Borrie F, Bearn D. Early correction of anterior crossbites: a systematic review. J Orthod 2011;38(3):175–184. DOI: 10.1179/14653121141443.
  31. Casutt C, Pancherz H, Gawora M, et al. Success rate and efficiency of activator treatment. Eur J Orthod 2007;29(6):614–621. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm066.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.