CONCLUSIONS FROM DISTALISATION (AND CLASS 2 ELASTICS) AND MANDIBULAR ADVANCEMENT (MA) 

CRITIQUE:

Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by Aligners and Elastics in Class II growing patients Federico Migliori

WHO

· 14 pts 13.6 years old

· Co-Go-Me 125 – hypodivergent

· Cervical spine C3

WHAT DID THEY DO IT

· Invisalign protocols for distalisation

o Sequential distalisation, ½ distalised, following tooth distalised - anchorage

o Class 2 elastics

WHAT DID THEY FIND

· Distalisation achieved in 15 months

· proclination of lowers did not occure IMPA: -2.2 – reduction

· Vertical control proportions FMA -1.7

· Co-Gn increased by 3mm

Correction of Class II malocclusion in growing patients with Aligners Dr. Simona Dianiskova

WHO

· Age 12, OJ 4mm, ANB 3

WHAT DID THEY DO IT

· De-rotate upper 1st molars – up to 2mm

o 85% of class 2 cases have rotated upper 1st molars

· Expansion – usually required

· Distalisation -2.5mm predictable Simon 2014 87%

· Class 2 from outset, no IPR

· Overcorrect upper inc by 5 degrees of palatal root torque – prevent undertorquing

analysis dolphin – Mcnamama

WHAT DID THEY FIND

Duration of tx 16-21 months

· Results no change ANB,

· Co-Gn 4 – stat sign

· Witts stat improve -1.8

· Ui and lLi 1-2 degrees change

· No vertical change FMA

II malocclusion treated with Invisalign with Mandibular advancement feature and twin block appliance compared with historical controls Dr. Sandra Tai

WHO

N32

Age 13

WHAT DID THEY DO IT

Outcome Ceph study

WHAT DID THEY FIND

SNB - stat sign for invisalign

Ui and Li procline 3.5 - stat sign t/b

No difference in vertical change both