Class II Treatment in Adults: Comparing Camouflage Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Orthognathic Surgery – A Cephalometric Study to Evaluate Various Therapeutic Effects*

Abstract

It was the aim of this clinical study to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as well as those on the profile of three different treatment approaches in Class II patients (camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics, and combined orthodontic and surgical treatment). Our study cohort consisted of 60 young adults presenting a skeletal Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: 20 patients whose overjet was reduced by camouflage following premolar extraction, 20 patients whose occlusions were corrected by placement of a fixed functional orthopedic appliance, and 20 who underwent orthognathic surgery (bilateral sagittal split osteotomy of the mandible without genioplasty). We documented the therapeutic progress using cephalometry. Each patient group achieved a reduction in overjet via their respective treatment. While no treatment-related changes in the maxillary area were assessable, the effects on the mandible differed. We observed advancement of the bony chin and an increase in mandibular length in the sagittal-diagonal dimension in the surgical and functional orthopedic groups. However, the extent of the treatment-related changes was significant only in the group of patients that had undergone orthognathic surgery. Only the surgical group presented changes in vertical relationships. Incisor repositioning as an outcome of the respective treatments differed fundamentally, with those in the surgical group revealing significant protrusion of the upper incisors. The maxillary incisors were retruded and mandibular incisors proclined in the functional orthopedic group, whereas the upper and lower incisors both retruded significantly in the extraction group. Soft-tissue remodeling bore no linear relationship to treatment-induced skeletal and dental effects. Still, orthognathic surgery led to the most marked profile changes. Treatment using fixed functional orthopedic appliances reduced the convexity of the soft-tissue profile at least moderately. Camouflage orthodontics, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in the nasolabial angle. In young adults fixed functional appliances are a treatment alternative to extraction therapy but to a lesser extent to orthognathic surgery. Because of their limited skeletal effects and minor changes in the profile they are indicated only in patients with a moderately severe Class II malocclusion. Pre-treatment proclined mandibular incisors limit the scope of indications for fixed functional appliances, as they can cause an increase in lower incisor proclination. Significant reductions in profile convexity are achievable only by combined orthodontic and surgical treatment of the malocclusion. When performing camouflage orthodontics in conjunction with maxillary premolar extractions in adults, an increase in the nasolabial angle, which is often esthetically undesirable, has to be discussed as a potential side effect and has to be taken into account when considering the different therapeutic approaches.