ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2019 August;68(4):150-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04209-2

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Non-extraction and multiloop edgewise technique versus orthognathic surgery and fixed appliance in adult class II patients: a cephalometric comparative study

Marco MIGLIORATI ¹ ✉, Sara DRAGO ¹, Irene SCHIAVETTI ², Guglielmo RAMIERI ³, Giovanni GERBINO ³, Francesca A. BIANCHI ^{3, 4}, Gaetano ISOLA ⁵, Armando SILVESTRINI-BIAVATI ¹

¹ Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; ² Division of Biostatistics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; ³ Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; ⁴ Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland; ⁵ Division of Orthodontics, Department of Biomedical, Odontostomatological Sciences and of Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

BACKGROUND: An alternative approach to surgery for treating class II adult borderline patients is the non-extraction and multiloop edgewise archwire (MEAW) technique. The aim of the present study is to compare dentoskeletal effects of the orthognathic surgery with the MEAW technique.
METHODS: Thirteen adults (ten women, three men; mean age, 27.8 years) were consecutively treated using the MEAW approach. The control group was made of 13 adults (nine women, four men; mean age, 26.2 years) treated by orthognathic surgery and the multibracket appliance before and after surgery. Lateral headfilms before and after all the treatments were traced for linear and angular measurements, and data were blindly analyzed. ANOVA was conducted to compare any difference over time between the two treatments. Differences over time for each variable, separately for surgery and MEAW, were assessed by Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS: No significant differences between the two groups were detected at baseline. Both treatments were effective in correcting dental discrepancies. A significant difference over time between the two treatments was found in several cephalometric measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limits of the present sample the following conclusion emerged: in the MEAW group, the malocclusion correction was predominantly dentoalveolar, and a significant profile change was observed. Significant skeletal and occlusal plane changes were obtained with the orthognathic surgery approach.

KEY WORDS: Mandibular advancement; Orthodontic appliances; Cephalometry