Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 8, 2026
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Comparison between two bone anchored force systems for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing
Objectives:
To evaluate and compare dentoalveolar changes after orthopedic treatment of growing skeletal Class II patients using either pushing or pulling force mechanics anchored to bimaxillary miniplates in comparison with deferred treatment control subjects.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 39 patients (24 male, 15 female; mean age 11.59 ± 0.56 years) was equally and randomly allocated to one of three study groups: pushing group (A), pulling group (B), and control group (C). Dental changes were assessed using pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cone-beam computed tomography scans.
Results:
One patient dropped out; therefore, 13, 12, and 13 patients were analyzed in groups A, B, and C, respectively. In groups A and B, overjet decreased by 7.00 ± 1.35 mm and 8.17 ± 1.4 mm, respectively. No significant change was observed in axial inclination of the mandibular incisors in either of the intervention groups between T1 and T2. Axial inclination of the maxillary incisors decreased significantly in Group B by 3.75 ± 1.71°. The sagittal position of the mandibular first molar changed significantly in Group A (4.15 ± 1.28 mm) and Group B (4.00 ± 1.41 mm). Maxillomandibular basal arch width differences were greater than -0.39 ± 1.87 mm in all study groups. No significant transverse arch measurement changes were observed.
Conclusions:
The use of either pushing or pulling force mechanics using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage was effective in improving Class II dental relationships without dentoalveolar side effects. Pretreatment transverse discrepancy should be assessed to incorporate maxillary expansion into the treatment protocol for patients diagnosed with maxillary arch constriction.
