Class II malocclusion is highly prevalent in our society and there is considerable demand for its treatment. The most advantageous timing for such treatment is poorly understood. Two basic timing strategies are common: 1) correction is achieved in two separate phases, one during pre- adolescence and the other during the teen years. 2) The entire correction is accomplished in one phase of active treatment during the adolescent years. The short-term goals of this project are as follows: 1) to compare the efficacy, costs and benefits of the early phase of Class II correction with observation only during the same period; 2) to determine how efficacy, costs and benefits are modified by the initial severity of the Class II malocclusion; and 3) to determine if a retention plan alters the outcome in these cases. A secondary goal will be to compare efficacy, costs and benefits of two commonly used early treatment appliances (i.e. headgear and activator). The long-term objective of the study will be to make similar comparison between patients treated only at adolescence and those who experience an early intervention aimed at initiating a correction of their Class II malocclusion during pre-adolescence. Four hundred subjects (ages 8-9) with Class II malocclusions will be selected and grouped, based on severity, to receive either headgear, activator or observation; and retention or no retention. The progress of these treatments will be monitored longitudinally for differences and changes in craniofacial/dental morphology; functional status; damages to the dentition, psychosocial parameters (including compliance, motivation, satisfaction with and attitude toward treatment); and treatment time.
| Dolce, Calogero; Mansour, David A; McGorray, Susan P et al. (2012) Intrarater agreement about the etiology of Class II malocclusion and treatment approach. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 141:17-23 |
| Thurman, M M; King, G J; Ramsay, D S et al. (2011) The effect of an anterior biteplate on dental and skeletal Class II correction using headgears: a cephalometric study. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:213-21 |
| Chen, David R; McGorray, Susan P; Dolce, Calogero et al. (2011) Effect of early Class II treatment on the incidence of incisor trauma. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:e155-60 |
| Wortham, James R; Dolce, Calogero; McGorray, Susan P et al. (2009) Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:65-74 |
| Dolce, Calogero; McGorray, Susan P; Brazeau, Lisamarie et al. (2007) Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:481-9 |
| King, Gregory J; McGorray, Susan P; Wheeler, Timothy T et al. (2003) Comparison of peer assessment ratings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:489-96 |
| Wheeler, Timothy T; McGorray, Susan P; Dolce, Calogero et al. (2002) Effectiveness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:9-17 |
| Ashmore, Jennifer L; Kurland, Brenda F; King, Gregory J et al. (2002) A 3-dimensional analysis of molar movement during headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:18-29; discussion 29-30 |
| King, G J; Wheeler, T T; McGorray, S P et al. (1999) Orthodontists' perceptions of the impact of phase 1 treatment for Class II malocclusion on phase 2 needs. J Dent Res 78:1745-53 |
| Ghafari, J; King, G J; Tulloch, J F (1998) Early treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion--comparison of alternative treatment modalities. Clin Orthod Res 1:107-17 |
Showing the most recent 10 out of 22 publications
