1. Why is the inter-incisor angle critical to stability in Class II div 2?

• Class II div 2 has increased inter-incisor angle
• Excessive angle → deep overbite and mandibular locking
• Normalizing angle:
  • Reduces vertical overlap
  • Allows lower incisors to sit in zone of balance
• Palatal torque of upper incisors is essential
• If angle is not corrected → lower incisors relapse

Viva punchline:
👉 Stable overbite correction depends on normalization of the inter-incisor angle.

---

2. Why doesn’t lower incisor advancement relapse?

• Relapse occurs only if teeth move outside muscular envelope
• Lower incisors are advanced:
  • Within lower lip contour
  • Not beyond soft-tissue limits
• Simultaneous:
  • Upper incisor intrusion
  • Palatal torque
• This unlocks the mandible
• New incisor position becomes physiologic

Viva punchline:
👉 Because the lower incisor is advanced within the soft-tissue envelope.

---

3. Why is flattening the curve of Spee essential?

• Class II div 2 → exaggerated curve of Spee
• Lower incisor advancement creates:
  • ~4–5 mm space anteriorly
  • ~8–10 mm total
• ~2 mm per side used for:
  • Flattening curve of Spee
• Remaining space used for alignment
• Flattening is part of correction, not space loss

Viva punchline:
👉 Curve of Spee flattening enables non-extraction treatment.

---

4. Why upper removable appliance first?

• Achieves multiple goals simultaneously:
  • Bite opening
  • Upper incisor palatal torque
  • Buccal segment distalization
  • Correction of scissor bite
  • Upper incisor intrusion
• Frees mandible from locked position
• Fixed appliance alone cannot do this efficiently

Viva punchline:
👉 Upper removable appliance provides coordinated first-phase correction.

---

5. Importance of upper incisor centroid

• Centroid = midpoint of incisor root
• Helps assess:
  • Root position
  • Torque control
• Lower incisor tip position relative to centroid determines:
  • Inter-incisor angle
  • Stability
• Lower incisor behind centroid → unstable
• Slightly ahead → stable relationship

Viva punchline:
👉 Centroid guides stable inter-incisor positioning.

---

6. When to extract? Why not first premolars?

• Extractions only if:
  • Severe skeletal discrepancy
  • Inadequate space after leveling
• First premolar extraction:
  • Compromises buccal segment correction
• Second premolars preferred:
  • Maintain Class I molar correction
• Decision after therapeutic diagnosis

Viva punchline:
👉 Extraction decisions are delayed and conservative in Class II div 2.

---

7. Why long-term lower bonded retainer?

• Lower anterior relapse is unpredictable
• Tight perioral musculature common
• Lower anterior segment is foundation of correction
• Bonded retainer:
  • Maintains AP and transverse position
• Stable lower incisors support upper incisors
• Upper arch often needs minimal retention

Viva punchline:
👉 Lower bonded retainer ensures long-term stability.

---

8. Role of upper incisor–lip relationship

• Upper incisor should:
  • Contact inner slope of lower lip
  • Show 2–3 mm at rest
• Defines soft-tissue boundary
• Dictates:
  • Amount of intrusion
  • Palatal torque
• Aesthetic goal = biomechanical goal

Viva punchline:
👉 Soft-tissue aesthetics guide incisor positioning.

---

9. Why no encroachment on lower lip?

• Teeth outside soft-tissue envelope relapse
• Lower lip exerts strong muscular pressure
• Advancing beyond lip contour → instability
• Staying within lip contour ensures:
  • Muscular support
  • Long-term stability

Viva punchline:
👉 Respecting the soft-tissue envelope prevents relapse.

---

10. Therapeutic diagnosis and extraction decision

• Therapeutic diagnosis = diagnosis through treatment response
• In Class II div 2:
  • Complete first-phase correction
  • Reassess space and alignment
• Avoid premature extraction decisions
• Especially useful in borderline cases

Viva punchline:
👉 Extraction is decided after observing treatment response.

---

If Class II Division 1 malocclusion is loud and obvious, Class II Division 2 is quiet—but far more deceptive. At first glance, the retroclined maxillary incisors and deep bite may seem straightforward. But for an orthodontic postgraduate, this malocclusion is a reminder that what looks simple often isn’t.

Let’s break it down—clinically, biomechanically, and philosophically.

🔍 Understanding the Core Problem

Class II Division 2 malocclusion is not merely an “incisor inclination issue.” It represents a complex interaction between vertical overlap, transverse restriction, and mandibular entrapment.

Key features include:

• Retroclined maxillary central incisors
• Deep overbite (often traumatic)
• Reduced inter-incisal angle adaptability
• Constricted lower arch due to vertical locking
• Increased freeway space and altered mandibular posture

👉 Clinical pearl: The lower arch is often trapped within the upper arch due to excessive vertical overlap—not truly deficient in size.

📐 Why Cephalometric Planning Matters

One of the most overlooked steps in managing Class II Div 2 cases is planning the final incisor position before moving a single tooth.

The treatment goal is not just to reduce overbite—but to:

• Normalize the inter-incisal angle
• Reposition incisors within the soft tissue envelope
• Improve dental esthetics without compromising stability

Rather than chasing numbers, PGs should ask:

“Where should the incisors ideally sit for facial balance and long-term stability?”

🦷 Non-Extraction: When and Why It Works

Contrary to traditional thinking, many Class II Div 2 cases can be managed non-extraction, provided:

• Skeletal discrepancy is mild to moderate
• Overbite is reduced early
• Curve of Spee is strategically leveled
• Lower incisors are advanced within lip boundaries

Overbite reduction alone can create 8–10 mm of usable space—a concept every PG should internalize before deciding on extractions.

Extraction Indicated When:

• Severe skeletal Class II
• Severe crowding
• Proclination exceeds soft tissue envelope

🛠️ Appliance Strategy: Think Sequential, Not Simultaneous

A common mistake is trying to do everything at once.

A biologically sound sequence includes:

1. Initial overbite reduction (often with removable or bite-opening mechanics)
2. Buccal segment correction and unlocking of the mandible
3. Lower arch leveling and alignment
4. Upper incisor torque and final detailing

This staged approach improves control, anchorage, and patient compliance.

🔁 Stability: The Real Exam Question

If there’s one word Class II Div 2 teaches every orthodontist, it’s respect—for relapse.

Stability hinges on:

• Normal inter-incisal angle
• Controlled lower incisor advancement
• Long-term bonded lingual retainers (especially 33–43)

💡 Retention is not an afterthought—it’s part of treatment planning.

What Do Radiographs Really Decide in Treatment Planning?

“If you see an impacted canine on an OPG, what makes you say— expose it… or extract it?”

This is a question every orthodontic student struggles with.

We are taught to look at angulation, height, overlap, resorption, and yet—when real consultants make decisions, only two radiographic factors consistently matter.

This blog breaks down which radiographic features truly influence treatment decisions and why, based on the classic study by Stivaros & Mandall (2000).

---

🔍 Why This Topic Matters Clinically

Impacted maxillary canines occur in 1.7–2.2% of the population.
Once a patient presents late, the orthodontist must choose between:

• Surgical exposure + orthodontic alignment
• Surgical removal

The wrong decision can mean:

• Prolonged treatment
• Periodontal compromise
• Failed alignment
• Unnecessary extraction

📌 Radiographs guide this decision—but not in the way students often assume.

🧠 Study in One Line

Orthodontists do NOT base their decision on most OPG measurements.
Instead, they rely mainly on:

1. Labio-palatal position of the canine crown
2. Angulation of the canine to the midline

---

🖼️ Radiographs Used in Decision Making

Radiograph	Purpose
OPG	Angulation, vertical height, overlap, root position, resorption
Lateral Skull Radiograph	Labio-palatal position of crown & root

---

📐 Radiographic Variables Assessed

1️⃣ Canine Angulation to Midline (OPG)

Grade	Angulation
Grade 1	0–15°
Grade 2	16–30°
Grade 3	≥31°

📌 Key Insight:
As angulation increases → probability of extraction increases

---

2️⃣ Vertical Height of Canine Crown

Grade	Position Relative to Incisor
1	Below CEJ
2	Above CEJ but < ½ root
3	> ½ root but < full root
4	Above full root length

⚠️ Surprising finding:
Vertical height did NOT significantly influence the treatment decision.

---

3️⃣ Overlap of Adjacent Incisor Root

Overlap	% Cases
No overlap	13.6%
Complete overlap	55.6%

Grade	Description
Grade 1	No horizontal overlap of the incisor root
Grade 2	Overlap of less than half the width of the incisor root
Grade 3	Overlap of more than half, but less than the full width of the incisor root
Grade 4	Complete overlap of the incisor root width or more

🧠 Clinical myth busted:
Even severe overlap did not statistically affect whether the canine was exposed or removed.

---

4️⃣ Root Resorption of Adjacent Incisor

Status	% Cases
Present	22.7%
Absent	77.3%

📌 Detected only on OPG → bucco-lingual resorption often missed.

---

⭐ The MOST Important Factor:

Labio-Palatal Position of the Canine Crown

Crown Position	Exposed (%)	Removed (%)
Labial	0	100
Line of arch	20	80
Palatal	66.7	33.3

🔑 Why Palatal Canines Are Favored for Exposure

• Better gingival management
• Easier surgical access
• Closed eruption techniques easier to manage
• Less risk of attachment failure

👉 Labial canines = poor periodontal prognosis → extraction preferred

---

📊 What Logistic Regression Showed

Radiographic Factor	Influence on Decision
Labio-palatal crown position	✅ Significant
Canine angulation to midline	✅ Significant
Vertical height	❌ Not significant
Incisor overlap	❌ Not significant
Root resorption	❌ Not significant

---

🧠 Clinical Interpretation (Exam-Gold Section)

Despite multiple measurable radiographic parameters, orthodontists subconsciously prioritize what affects biomechanics and periodontal outcomes the most.

• A palatally placed canine can often be guided into the arch safely.
• A horizontally angulated canine fights biomechanics.
• OPG measurements act as guides, not decision-makers.

---

📝 Questions to Ponder (with Answers)

❓1. Why doesn’t severe incisor overlap automatically lead to extraction?

Answer:
Modern fixed orthodontics allows alignment even from difficult positions. Overlap alone does not predict failure.

---

❓2. Why is labial impaction considered worse than palatal?

Answer:
Because of:

• Attached gingiva loss
• Higher risk of gingival recession
• Difficulty with surgical access and rebonding

---

❓3. Why is angulation more important than vertical height?

Answer:
Angulation determines path of eruption and biomechanical feasibility, whereas height mainly affects treatment duration.

---

❓4. Why can’t OPG alone decide treatment?

Answer:
OPGs have:

• Magnification
• Distortion
• Poor bucco-lingual information

👉 Lateral skull radiograph adds crucial spatial insight.

---

❓5. If radiographs are limited, what else influences decisions?

Answer:

• Patient motivation
• Oral hygiene
• Periodontal status
• Willingness for long treatment

---

🎯 Take-Home Message for Students

Don’t get lost measuring everything on an OPG.
Ask yourself just two questions first:

1️⃣ Is the canine palatal or labial?
2️⃣ How steep is its angulation to the midline?

Everything else is supporting data—not the final verdict.

(Based on Linder-Aronson et al., Am J Orthod, 1986)

As orthodontists, we often label a child as a “vertical grower” or “long-face case” very early—and then plan mechanics accordingly.
But what if that growth direction is not fixed?
What if airway obstruction and breathing mode are quietly influencing mandibular posture and growth direction—and correcting the airway changes the skeletal trajectory?

Understanding Mandibular Growth Direction (MGD)

What do we mean by “mandibular growth direction”?

• Mandibular growth direction refers to the direction in which the chin (gnathion) moves during growth
• It is assessed by:
  • Superimposing serial cephalograms on stable cranial base structures
  • Tracking the movement of gnathion
  • Measuring its angle relative to the Sella–Nasion (SN) plane

Simplified interpretation:

• More horizontal MGD → forward chin growth → better profile, less vertical facial height
• More vertical MGD → downward/backward chin growth → long face tendency

📌 MGD represents the sum total of multiple growth influences, not just mandibular length.

---

Question to Ponder

If two children have the same mandibular length, can they still have very different facial profiles? Why?

---

2. Why Airway Obstruction Matters in Facial Growth

What happens in children with enlarged adenoids?

Children with severe nasopharyngeal obstruction often show:

• Mouth breathing
• Lowered mandibular posture
• Increased lower anterior face height
• Steeper mandibular plane
• Retrognathic mandible

These features are classically associated with vertical growth patterns.

---

Cause → Mechanism → Effect

Step	Explanation
Cause	Enlarged adenoids → nasal obstruction
Mechanism	Mouth breathing → mandible held in a lowered position
Effect	Increased lower face height + vertical mandibular growth

⚠️ The key point is mandibular posture, not just airflow.

---

Question to Ponder

Is it the path of air or the position of the mandible during breathing that matters more for growth?

---

3. What Is Adenoidectomy Expected to Do (The Hypothesis)

The authors asked a simple but powerful question:

If nasal breathing is restored after adenoidectomy, does mandibular growth direction change?

Null Hypothesis: Restoring nasal breathing does not affect mandibular growth direction.

If the mandible becomes:

• More horizontal → hypothesis rejected
• Same as controls → hypothesis rejected

4. How the Study Was Designed

Study Groups

Group	Description
Adenoidectomy group	38 children (7–12 yrs) with severe nasal obstruction who changed from mouth to nasal breathing
Control group	37 age- and sex-matched children with clear airways

Important Controls:

• No orthodontic treatment in either group
• 5-year follow-up using serial cephalograms
• Separate analysis for boys and girls

Why not short-term?

• Small growth increments exaggerate measurement errors
• Reliable conclusions require ≥10 mm of chin growth

📌 Important learning point:
MGD measurements are highly sensitive to superimposition errors—long-term data matters.

---

5. What Did the Study Find? (Core Results)

A. Girls After Adenoidectomy

• Showed significantly more horizontal mandibular growth
• More horizontal than even female controls
• Suggests partial recovery from earlier vertical growth

B. Boys After Adenoidectomy

• Trend toward more horizontal growth
• But not statistically significant
• Still showed large individual variation

Group	Change in MGD After Adenoidectomy
Girls	Significant horizontal shift
Boys	Horizontal trend, not significant
Both	Greater variability than controls

Group	Boys MGD Mean (SD)	Girls MGD Mean (SD)	Variability vs Controls
Adenoidectomy	58° (18°)	61° (16°)	Higher (P<0.05)
Controls	62° (11°)	72° (9°)	Lower

Question to Ponder
Why might girls show a clearer skeletal response than boys after airway correction?

6. Why Was Growth More Variable After Adenoidectomy?

Animal studies help explain this.

Key Insight from Primate Studies:

• Some subjects respond to obstruction by:
  • Holding mandible down → vertical growth
• Others:
  • Open mouth briefly for each breath → normal growth

👉 Different neuromuscular adaptations → different growth outcomes

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

---

1️⃣ Growth Direction Is Not Always Fixed

• Traditionally, vertical growers were treated by adapting mechanics
• This study suggests growth direction can partially recover naturally

---

2️⃣ Incisor Crowding May Be Environmental

After adenoidectomy:

• Incisors often change from retroclined → proclined
• Arch circumference may increase
• Some crowding may resolve without extractions

📌 Not all crowding = tooth–jaw size discrepancy

---

3️⃣ Timing Matters

• Adenoids are largest around 5 years
• Often regress naturally later by age 10 years
• Surgery should be reserved for symptomatic young children

---

4️⃣ Airflow Alone Is Not Enough

• Increased nasal airflow ≠ changed mandibular posture
• Posture is the biological driver of growth change

---

Question to Ponder

How might early airway evaluation change your extraction vs non-extraction decisions?

Final Take-Home Message

The mandible does not grow in isolation.
It grows within a functional environment—especially the airway.
As orthodontists, ignoring that environment means missing half the diagnosis.

As an ortho student, you keep hearing “check adenoids, check tonsils, check breathing.” By the end of this blog, you should be able to predict the likely malocclusion pattern just from knowing where the child’s airway is obstructed – and explain the logic behind it to parents and ENTs, not just quote it.

The core question Nunes asked

Nunes & Di Francesco (2010) studied 114 mouth-breathing, snoring children (3–12 years) with tonsillar and/or adenoid enlargement, all seen in an ENT clinic.​

They asked a very simple but powerful question:

“Is the site of lymphoid obstruction (adenoids, tonsils, or both) associated with specific patterns of malocclusion (sagittal / transverse / vertical)?”

Obstruction was graded objectively: tonsils (Brodsky 1-4), adenoids (cephalometric 0-100%). Orthodontic exams classified sagittal (I/II/III), transverse (normal/crossbite), and vertical (normal/open/deep) relationships.

The groups:

• Non-obstructive (small tonsils/adenoids)
• Isolated obstructive tonsils
• Isolated obstructive adenoids
• Combined obstructive adenoids + tonsils​

LIKELY AIRWAY OBSTRUCTION → EXPECTED MALOCCLUSION

A. Adenoid + Tonsil Hypertrophy

• 🔹 Common occlusion: Class II
• 🔹 Transverse: Posterior crossbite common
• 🔹 Skeletal pattern: Vertical growth tendency
• 🔹 Clinical hint: Retropositioned mandible, narrow maxilla

B. Isolated Tonsillar Hypertrophy

• 🔹 Common occlusion: Class III tendency
• 🔹 Mechanism: Forward tongue posture
• 🔹 Watch for: Lower incisor proclination

C. Isolated Adenoid Hypertrophy

• 🔹 Usually Class I or mild Class II
• 🔹 Often associated with maxillary constriction

TRANSVERSE DIMENSION (KEY RED FLAG 🚩)

• Posterior crossbite prevalence ↑ in all airway obstruction types
• Early maxillary expansion = functional + airway benefit

VERTICAL RELATIONSHIP

• ☐ Open bite / Deep bite
• ⚠️ Not directly site-dependent
• Influenced by:
  • Facial type
  • Oral habits (thumb sucking, tongue thrust)

Is this malocclusion causing airway issues, or is the airway issue causing this malocclusion?
Airway obstruction causes the malocclusion. Nunes 2010 shows enlarged adenoids/tonsils (64.9% combined obstructive) drive specific patterns: combined → Class II (43.2%) via backward mandibular rotation for airflow; tonsils only → Class III (37.5%) via forward tongue thrust. Mouth breathing narrows palate → 36.8% posterior crossbite (vs 6.9-16.4% controls/population). Reverse (malocclusion → airway) not supported—it’s functional matrix disruption (Moss theory).

If I correct the teeth without correcting the airway, will this case relapse?
Yes, high relapse risk. Obstruction persists → ongoing tongue displacement, mandibular posture changes, dolichofacial growth continue post-ortho. Adenotonsillectomy normalizes GH → mandibular growth boost, but without it, ortho stability fails as functional drivers (mouth breathing) remain. Early ENT + ortho (pre-spurt) prevents irreversibility.​

Am I seeing a dental problem or a functional growth problem?
Functional growth problem. 36.8% crossbite, site-specific sagittal shifts (P=.02) signal airway-altered craniofacial development, not isolated dental misalignment. Class I appears “normal” but hides constricted arches → future crowding; true dental issues lack this obstruction-malocclusion signature.

Will correcting the airway allow self-correction of growth?
Partial self-correction possible pre-spurt: surgery normalizes GH, boosts condylar/mandibular base apposition → some malocclusion improvement. Not full—ortho often needed for transverse (crossbite), residual sagittal discrepancies.

In Class II: Is the mandible retruded due to posture or true deficiency?
Posture-driven retrusion from airway obstruction. Nunes shows combined adenoid+tonsil enlargement (64.9% sample) correlates with Class II (43.2% vs population 12.6%), caused by backward mandibular rotation—child opens posture for airflow through narrow palate, displacing mandible posteriorly. Not primary skeletal deficiency; functional adaptation becomes skeletal if untreated pre-spurt.​

In Class II: Is the head posture influencing jaw position?
Yes, head posture reinforces retrusion. Mouth breathing → forward head tilt + downward chin to compensate airway restriction, locking mandible in distal position and promoting dolichofacial growth (vertical dominance). Nunes links this cycle: obstruction → tongue flop → posture change → Class II signature (P=.02 sagittal association).​

In Class III: Is tongue pressure from tonsillar obstruction contributing?
Yes, directly. Isolated tonsillar enlargement (7%) drives Class III (37.5% vs population 1.9%)—tonsils narrow oropharynx, forcing tongue forward/downward against lower anteriors, proclining incisors and shifting mandible mesially. Adenoids alone (12% Class III) lack this lower-level pressure effect.​

In Class III: Is this a true skeletal Class III or a pseudo-Class III?
Pseudo-Class III (functional). Forward tongue thrust from tonsils creates mesial molar relation + lower incisor procline, mimicking skeletal but reversing post-tonsillectomy via normalized tongue posture and mandibular growth (GH normalization). True skeletal lacks airway trigger; differentiate via tonsil grade + tongue eval

Ladies and gentlemen, orthodontic residents of the jury—
Today we talk about Class III malocclusion, aka “the maxilla that refused to show up to growth spurts.”

You know the type.
Mandible loud.
Maxilla shy.
Parents hopeful.
You? Exhausted.

Enter stage left: Alt-RAMEC—the protocol that doesn’t shove the maxilla forward…
…it gaslights the sutures into giving up.

Traditional RME says:

“Open the suture. Hope for the best.”

Alt-RAMEC says:

“Open it. Close it. Open it again. Close it again.
Do this for 9 weeks until the circummaxillary sutures question all their life choices.”

Designed for prepubertal Class III patients (around 9–10 years old) with maxillary retrognathia, Alt-RAMEC isn’t about instant gratification.
It’s about preparation—like stretching before a marathon, except the marathon is facemask protraction and the stretching is controlled skeletal chaos.

Understanding the Core Problem

The traditional approach combines RME with facemask therapy, operating on the assumption that expansion forces disarticulate the circumaxillary sutures, making the maxilla more responsive to protraction.​

But here’s the limitation: conventional RME applies continuous expansion, which may not optimally mobilize all the sutures surrounding the maxilla. The zygomaticomaxillary, zygomaticotemporal, and other circummaxillary sutures might need a different mechanical stimulus to truly “loosen up” the entire nasomaxillary complex.

The 9-Week Protocol: Step-by-Step

The implementation is straightforward but requires precise patient compliance:

• Week 1: Expand 1mm per day (two turns morning, two turns evening)
• Week 2: Constrict 1mm per day (same activation schedule)
• Repeat this alternating pattern for 9 consecutive weeks
• The double-hinged design positions the center of rotation near the maxillary tuberosity, theoretically enhancing forward movement

Pause for thought: Before reading the results, ask yourself:

• How much forward movement of point A would you consider clinically significant in a 9-week orthopedic protocol?
• Which structures beyond the maxilla might be affected by these alternating forces?
• Could this protocol have unintended effects on the airway or facial soft tissues?

What the Evidence Shows

A landmark 3D study by Yilmaz and Kucukkeles followed 20 prepubertal patients (mean age 9 years 8 months) through the complete 9-week Alt-RAMEC protocol using CBCT and 3D facial photography. Their findings challenge some assumptions while validating others

Skeletal Effects (Alt‑RAMEC Alone)

Measurement	Mean Change
Point A (AP)	+0.9 mm forward
Point A (Vertical)	+0.9 mm downward
Point A transverse width	+5.5 mm
Nasal width (INC r–l)	+3.0 mm
Zygomaticomaxillary width	+1.6 mm
Zygomaticotemporal sutures	~0.5–0.8 mm

Pearl: Transverse effects >> sagittal effects

These findings confirm that Alt-RAMEC forces extend beyond the midpalatal suture, affecting the entire circummaxillary complex and producing a triangular expansion pattern, with differential vertical and transverse displacement of adjacent bones.

Note: 3mm point A advancement in Alt RAMEC versus 1.6mm for conventional RME

---

Soft Tissue Changes

Area	Change
Alar width	+1.7 mm
Subalare width	+1.1 mm
Lips / profile	No significant change

---

Airway Changes

Compartment	Change
Anterior nasal airway	↑ ~376 mm³
Nasal cavity	↑ ~4630 mm³
Total airway	↑ ~5320 mm³
Pharyngeal airway	No significant change

These airway improvements occur without facemask therapy, suggesting Alt-RAMEC alone may benefit patients with constricted nasomaxillary complexes and breathing concerns.

In what clinical scenario might the 9-week timeline conflict with your practice’s typical treatment sequencing?

Scenario	Typical Sequencing	Alt-RAMEC Conflict
Conventional RME + Facemask	3-4 weeks expansion → immediate protraction (4-6 months) ​	Adds 5-6 extra weeks before protraction ​

Multi-Phase Protocol Overlaps

Two-phase treatments sequence expansion/protraction into Phase I (6-12 months total), followed by comprehensive fixed appliances after 3-6 months observation. Alt-RAMEC extends Phase I initiation, delaying Phase II bonding when second molars erupt, potentially compressing timelines

Patient Growth Phase Transitions

Mixed dentition timing (ages 7-9) is ideal for early intervention, but a 9-week commitment delays facemask protraction, which typically follows 3-4 weeks of conventional RME. If a patient nears late mixed dentition or cervical stage 2, postponing protraction risks reduced skeletal response as maxillary sutures stiffen.​

Seasonal and Compliance Conflicts

Summer vacations or school holidays often prompt parents to request faster starts, but Alt-RAMEC’s extended activation spans breaks, disrupting compliance monitoring. Practices with bimonthly recalls find the weekly parental turns challenging without interim checks, unlike shorter RME phases.

How does the double-hinged screw’s center of rotation near the maxillary tuberosity compare biomechanically to standard Hyrax expanders in finite element models?

Expander Type	Center of Rotation	Maxillary Movement Pattern	Stress Distribution
Standard Hyrax	Anterior (near ANS)	Posterior rotation + buccal tipping	Concentrated anteriorly
Double-Hinged Alt-RAMEC	Posterior (tuberosity area)	Parallel forward displacement	Balanced across sutures​

Early correction of Class III malocclusion is one of the most debated areas in orthodontics. Should you intervene early or wait until growth is complete?
Peter Ngan’s landmark review gives us clear, clinically grounded answers—based on evidence, long-term outcomes, and growth prediction.

1. Why Treat Class III Early?

In 1981, Turpin suggested early treatment only when positive conditions exist—such as:

• Convergent facial type
• Anterior functional shift
• Symmetrical condyle growth
• Mild skeletal discrepancy
• Some growth potential remaining
• Good cooperation
• No strong family history of mandibular prognathism

If these factors are negative, waiting until growth completes may be wiser.

What 20 more years of evidence taught us

Class III patients with maxillary deficiency respond very well to maxillary expansion + facemask therapy.

2. What Happens Biomechanically During Expansion + Facemask Protraction?

A prospective clinical trial on 20 skeletal Class III patients showed consistent and predictable changes after 6–9 months:

A. Skeletal Effects

• Forward displacement of the maxilla
• Backward + downward rotation of the mandible
• Increase in lower facial height

B. Dental Effects

• Proclination of maxillary incisors
• Retroclination of mandibular incisors
• Molar relationship overcorrected to Class I or II

C. Occlusal Effects

• Correction of anterior crossbite
• Reduction of overbite

Takeaway: Expansion loosens circummaxillary sutures → facemask applies orthopedic anterior pull → mandible rotates down/back → overjet improves.

3. Stability Depends on Overcorrection

A 4-year follow-up revealed:

• 75% maintained positive overjet OR end-to-end incisor relation
• Relapse occurred only in patients with excess horizontal mandibular growth

Why overcorrect?

Because mandibular growth continues into puberty, and many patients experience late forward mandibular growth.

So you must end with:

• Slight overjet
• Class I/II molar relationship
• Adequate overbite

This overcorrection creates a buffer against future mandibular growth.

4. Why Response Varies: The Growth Problem

Some patients protract beautifully; others barely change.
Why?
→ Because mandibular growth is highly variable and not fully predictable.

As Creekmore & Radney famously said:

“The same treatment does not elicit the same response for all individuals since individuals do not grow the same.”

Therefore, to manage Class III effectively, you must understand growth prediction tools.

5. Predicting Mandibular Growth: Key Analyses for Ortho Students

A. Björk’s 7 Structural Signs

Using a single cephalogram, Björk looked at:

• Condylar head inclination
• Mandibular canal curvature
• Lower border contour
• Symphysis inclination
• Interincisal angle
• Intermolar angle
• Lower anterior facial height

These signs indicate mandibular rotation tendencies.

---

B. Symphyseal Morphology (Aki et al.)

Anterior mandibular growth is associated with:

• Reduced symphysis height
• Increased depth
• Low height:depth ratio
• Large symphysis angle

This is a simple indicator for future prognathism.

---

C. Schulhof Prediction (Rocky Mountain Data System)

Uses deviations in:

• Molar relation
• Cranial deflection
• Porion position
• Ramus position

Sum > 4 = higher risk of excessive mandibular growth (accuracy ~70%).

---

D. GTRV (Growth Treatment Response Vector) — A Must-Know Tool

GTRV =
Horizontal A-point growth ÷ Horizontal B-point growth

• Norm (6–16 yrs): 0.77
• < 0.60 → likely to need surgery later

This helps decide whether early treatment is beneficial or whether growth is too unfavorable.

---

E. Discriminant Variables with 95% Predictive Accuracy

Studies identified variables strongly predicting success:

• Condylar head inclination
• Maxillo–mandibular vertical relationship
• Mandibular arch width
• Mandibular position
• Ramus length
• Corpus length
• Gonial angle

Combining these increases predictability dramatically.

6. Clinical Indicators: Who Is an Ideal Candidate for Facemask Therapy?

Best Candidates

✔ Skeletal Class III with retrusive maxilla
✔ Hypodivergent growth pattern
✔ Functional anterior shift
✔ Moderate overbite
✔ Good cooperation
✔ No strong family history of mandibular prognathism

Why Overbite Helps

It helps stabilize the corrected overjet and prevents relapse.

7. Special Considerations: Hyperdivergent Patients

These patients can worsen vertically.

Recommendation:

• Use a bonded palatal expander → controls vertical eruption
• Retention phase →
  • Mandibular retractor or
  • Class III activator with posterior bite block

Vertical control is the priority here.

What Should Students Take Away From This?

✔ Maxillary expansion + facemask is powerful

Especially before the pubertal growth spurt.

✔ Overcorrect and hold

Aim for Class I/II molar and positive/edge-to-edge overjet.

✔ Growth prediction determines long-term success

Use:

• Björk analysis
• Symphyseal morphology
• Schulhof system
• GTRV analysis
• Cephalometric predictors

✔ Mandibular growth is the biggest spoiler

Failures typically occur due to horizontal mandibular surge, not poor treatment execution.

✔ Not every Class III child is a facemask candidate

Case selection → Success.

Conclusion

Understanding the biomechanics, growth prediction, and treatment indicators allows you to approach Class III treatment scientifically—not guesswork.

Class III malocclusion has always been orthodontics’ plot twist — unpredictable, stubborn, and full of surprises. For decades, clinicians believed the villain was a big, bad mandible. Turns out? Many children actually have a retruded maxilla, not a hypergrown mandible.

Cue the protraction facemask — an appliance designed to pull the maxilla forward during childhood, before growth makes the situation harder to fix.

But here’s the real question every orthodontic student should be asking:

👉 Does the facemask actually work?
And if yes, by how much, in whom, and under what conditions?

A group of researchers (Kim et al., 1999) got tired of the confusion and did something smart:
They conducted a meta-analysis — essentially combining data from 14 acceptable studies out of 440 initially screened — to find real, clinically meaningful answers.

🔍 Why a Meta-Analysis Was Needed

Research on facemask therapy was messy:

• Different appliances
• Different ages
• Different force levels
• Different study designs
• Many case reports, few controlled trials

And because each study had small sample sizes, the orthodontic world couldn’t agree on:

• the best age to start treatment
• whether palatal expansion helps
• how much skeletal vs dental effect is actually achieved

A meta-analysis solves this by pooling data to reveal the big picture.

1. Overall Effects of Facemask Therapy

Parameter	Direction of Change	Clinical Meaning
SNA	↑ increases	Maxilla moves forward
SNB	↓ decreases	Mandible rotates down-back
ANB	↑ increases (~2.8° mean)	Skeletal relationship improves
Wits	↑ improves (4–5 mm)	Sagittal correction achieved
Mandibular plane angle	↑ increases	Down-back rotation of mandible
Palatal plane angle	Slight ↓	Mild clockwise tipping
Upper incisor inclination	↑ labial proclination	Dental compensation
Lower incisor inclination	↓ uprighting	Chin-cup and soft tissue effects
Point A	Moves forward	Skeletal protraction confirmed

2. Expansion vs. Non-Expansion Groups (RPE vs No RPE)

Finding	RPE Group	Non-Expansion Group	Interpretation
Maxillary forward movement	Similar	Similar	Both effective
Mandibular rotation	Similar	Similar	Similar skeletal effect
ANB improvement	Similar	Similar	No major difference
Upper incisor proclination	LESS	MORE (+2.8°)	RPE reduces dental side-effects
Treatment duration	Shorter	Longer	RPE may speed skeletal effect
Overall skeletal response	Slightly more favorable	Slightly less favorable	RPE enhances orthopedic effect

3. Younger vs. Older Age Groups

Age Group	Treatment Response	Magnitude of Advantage	Clinical Interpretation
Younger patients (4–10 yrs)	Larger skeletal change	+0.6° SNA, +1.0° ANB, +1.3 mm Wits	Earlier = better
Older patients (10–15 yrs)	Still responds well	Slightly reduced effect	Still worth treating
Overjet correction	More skeletal	More dental	Younger = orthopedic, Older = dentoalveolar
Variation	Higher in younger	Lower in older	Younger growth less predictable

4. Expected Treatment Effects (Averaged Across 14 Studies)

Variable	Combined Mean Change	Interpretation
SNA	+1.7°	Maxillary advancement
SNB	–1.2°	Mandibular backward rotation
ANB	+2.79°	Significant skeletal correction
Wits	+4–5 mm	Sagittal improvement
Upper incisor torque	+7°	Labial flaring
Lower incisor torque	–3°	Uprighting
Point A horizontal	Forward movement	Confirms orthopedic action
Total treatment duration	~6–12 months	Typical clinical protocol

🎒 What Ortho Students Should Understand by the End

Here is the logical framework you must take away:

1. Class III ≠ always mandibular excess

Maxillary retrusion is common → treat the right jaw.

2. Facemask therapy produces both skeletal and dental changes

But the skeletal component is real, reproducible, and meaningful.

3. Early treatment works best, but late mixed dentition still responds

Don’t write off 10–12-year-olds.

4. Expansion improves efficiency, but doesn’t determine success

It’s an enhancer, not a prerequisite.

5. Meta-analysis helps us see beyond isolated case reports

This study cuts through the clinical noise to reveal clear trends.

If you think orthodontics is only about teeth and jaws, think again.
The temporomandibular joint (TMJ)—especially the glenoid fossa—quietly influences some of the most important facial patterns you diagnose every day:

• Class II retrusion vs. Class III prognathism
• High-angle vs. low-angle growth patterns
• Deep bites, open bites, vertical maxillary excess
• Mandibular rotation direction

And yet, most students rarely analyze the fossa position.

Baccetti et al. (1997) decided to change that.

The Big Question

Does the position of the glenoid fossa differ between Class I, II, III and between high-, normal-, and low-angle facial types?
If yes—can this help us diagnose better?

Spoiler: YES. And the vertical dimension tells a story even more strongly than the sagittal one.

THE STUDY AT A GLANCE

Sample

• 180 children (7–12 years) — equal males/females
• Pretreatment cephalograms
• Clear glenoid fossa outline required
• Divided into 9 subgroups:
  • Class I, Class II, Class III
  • Low-, normal-, high-angle
  • Combined internally for controlled comparison

Why this is important?

Because it removes age/sex bias → differences truly reflect facial type, not growth/sex variation.

What Exactly Did They Measure?

Two planes of interest:

---

1. Sagittal (Anterior–Posterior) TMJ Position

Key indicators:

• T–Fs’: Distance from sella wall (point T) to fossa summit projection
• T–Ar’: Distance from point T to articulare projection

Shorter distances = fossa positioned more posteriorly.

---

2. Vertical (Cranial–Caudal) TMJ Position

Key indicators:

• Fs–Fs’
• Ar–Ar’
• TangFs–PNS and TangAr–PNS
• SBL–Me, SBL–Go, SBL–ANS

These measure how high or low the fossa sits relative to the cranial base and nasal spines.

Takeaway:
Vertical indicators tell you far more than sagittal ones.

THE LOGIC OF THE FINDINGS

Let’s break them down so they make intuitive sense.

---

1. Sagittal Findings (Class I vs II vs III)

Class II → Glenoid Fossa is More Posterior

A posterior fossa places the condyle backward → enhances mandibular retrusion → increases ANB.

This fits what you see clinically:

• Class II often have posteriorly positioned condyles
• Functional appliances can remodel the fossa anteriorly (as noted in prior studies)

Class III → Glenoid Fossa is More Anterior

An anteriorly placed fossa gives the mandible a “forward hinge.”
This contributes to:

• Lower ANB
• Apparent mandibular prognathism

Logical link:
The fossa location magnifies or mitigates jaw relationships.

---

2. Vertical Findings (Normal vs Low vs High Angle)

This is where the study becomes extremely clinically valuable.

High-Angle Patients → Glenoid Fossa is More Cranial (Higher Up)

A high-positioned fossa elevates the condyle → encourages vertical growth pattern → clockwise rotation → long-face appearance.

Clinical correlation:

• Hyperdivergent faces
• Increased mandibular plane angle
• Open bite tendencies
• Posterior rotation of mandible

Low-Angle Patients → Glenoid Fossa is More Caudal (Lower Down)

A low-positioned fossa → condyle sits lower → reduces vertical dimension → promotes horizontal growth.

Clinical correlation:

• Short face
• Deep bite tendencies
• Strong chin
• Forward mandibular rotation

And the most important part:

The posterior nasal spine (PNS) is an excellent reference point for evaluating fossa height.

---

VERTICAL > SAGITTAL

The authors emphasized that vertical differences were more pronounced, more consistent, and more diagnostically useful than sagittal differences.

This means:

If you want to understand a patient’s growth pattern and mandibular rotation tendencies, analyze fossa height.

---

Clinical Logic — Why Does Fossa Position Matter?

Understanding fossa position helps you answer critical orthodontic questions:

---

A. Why does a patient grow clockwise vs counterclockwise?

High fossa = clockwise rotation (high-angle)
Low fossa = counterclockwise rotation (low-angle)

---

B. Why do some Class II patients look worse even after camouflage?

Because a posterior fossa inherently pushes the mandible back.

---

C. Why do functional appliances work better in some children?

Certain fossa shapes/positions favor forward condylar adaptation.

---

D. Why are some deep bites so stubborn?

Low-angle → low fossa → strong masticatory musculature → deep bite tendency.

---

Key Cephalometric Pearls You Should Remember

1. Class II = posterior fossa

2. Class III = anterior fossa

3. High-angle = high fossa

4. Low-angle = low fossa

5. Vertical position is the best diagnostic clue

---

Practical Clinical Use (Student Cheat Sheet)

If you see a HIGH-ANGLE face…

Expect:

• High fossa
• Clockwise rotation
• Weak chin
• Open bite risk
• Need for vertical control

If you see a LOW-ANGLE face…

Expect:

• Low fossa
• Counterclockwise rotation
• Strong chin
• Deep bite risk
• Avoid excessive uprighting/extrusion of molars

If you see a CLASS II face…

Check:

• Is the fossa posterior?
• Is the retrusion skeletal or positional?

If you see a CLASS III face…

Check:

• Is the mandible truly prognathic?
• Or is the fossa anteriorly placed?

---

Why This Study Matters Today (Even in CBCT Era)

Although the study used 2D cephalograms, the concept is timeless:

TMJ position is not the result of teeth; it helps shape the face.
Understanding fossa position allows you to predict growth and plan treatment wisely.

Today, CBCT gives even clearer visualization—but the same principles apply.

---

Final Takeaway for Ortho Students

If you understand this one idea, you have mastered the essence of the paper:

The glenoid fossa is not a passive socket—it actively influences sagittal and vertical facial patterns.
Its position helps determine whether a patient grows long, short, forward, or backward.

Once you learn to read it, the TMJ becomes one of your most powerful diagnostic tools.

1. ORIGINAL THEORY (1970s–1980s)

Proposed by: McNamara, Petrovic
Claim:

• Functional appliances → mandible advanced → LPM hyperactivity
• Hyperactive LPM → traction on condylar cartilage → accelerated mandibular growth

Clinical relevance back then:
Cornerstone explanation for functional appliance effects.

---

2. WHY THE THEORY FAILED

A. Anatomical Evidence

• LPM does NOT attach directly to the condylar disc.
• It attaches to anterior capsule, not fibrocartilage.
• Other muscles (temporalis, masseter) also influence disc region.
  ➡️ Traction theory anatomically unsupported.

---

B. Biomechanical Contradiction

• Functional appliances shorten the LPM (mandible forward).
• Shortened muscles do not reflexively hyperactivate.
  ➡️ Hyperactivity in a shortened muscle = biomechanically illogical.

---

C. Myectomy (LPM Removal) Studies

• LPM surgically removed (Whetten, Johnston).
• Condylar growth still occurred.
• Some blood supply disruption possible, but:
  ➡️ Growth did not rely on LPM traction.

---

D. Modern EMG Findings

Using refined EMG and longitudinal monitoring:

• Functional appliance therapy → decreased LPM postural activity
• ↓ LPM activity → increased, not reduced, condylar growth
  Researchers: Auf Der Maur, Pancherz, Ingervall, Bitsanis
  ➡️ Opposite of original hypothesis.

---

3. CURRENT UNDERSTANDING (Modern Paradigm)

What actually promotes condylar growth?

• Sustained forward mandibular positioning
• Viscoelastic stretch of posterior periarticular tissues
• Altered joint-space loading
• Improved retro-condylar vascular perfusion
• Functional adaptation of soft tissues
  ➡️ Growth results from stable repositioning, not muscle hyperactivity.

---

4. PRACTICAL CLINICAL TAKEAWAYS

✔ Functional appliances work—but not because of LPM hyperactivity
✔ Continuous wear > part-time wear (stability > force)
✔ Condylar remodeling depends on tissue stretch & vascular changes
✔ LPM helps maintain position but does not stimulate growth
✔ Growth is a multifactorial adaptive response, not a muscle-traction effect