Introduction

  The aims of this study were to investigate whether there is a different transverse morphologic pattern of dental arches among patients with different manifestations of Class II Division 2 incisor retroclination and to evaluate to what extent the pattern of smaller-than-average teeth in Class II Division 2 malocclusion is common to all groups studied. This information might clarify whether different Class II Division 2 phenotypes represent a single etiology or multiple etiologies.

 Methods

 The sample comprised 108 subjects with Class II Division 2 malocclusions, divided into 2 groups according to the type of incisor retroclination: group I included 43 Class II Division 2 subjects with retroclination exclusively of the maxillary central incisors, and group II included 65 Class II Division 2 subjects with retroclination of the 4 maxillary incisors. Maxillary and mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths as well as mesiodistal crown dimensions of the 4 maxillary and mandibular incisors were determined from the patients' initial study models. Mean values of all variables were compared between the 2 groups by sex with analysis of variance.

  Results

  From the comparison between these 2 groups, no statistically significant differences were found for all transverse measurements (P >0.05). For all mesiodistal measurements analyzed, statistically significant differences between the groups were only found for the mean value of both maxillary lateral incisors' mesiodistal dimensions in both sexes (P <0.05).

 Conclusions

  It is not possible to attribute a characteristic pattern of dental arch-width and incisor mesiodistal dimensions to the different manifestations of incisor retroclination in Class II Division 2 malocclusion.

 Source: American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics

 Full Text