Xbow Blended Two Phase The Other Way To Use Class II Springs

Transcription

1 Xbow Blended Two Phase The Other Way To Use Class II Springs Conflict of Interest Declaration I receive royalties from orthodontic labs that are licensed to fabricate the appliance discussed in this presentation. Duncan W. Higgins DDS MSD FRCD(C) Maxillary Expansion Cornerstone of Class II treatment Hyrax RME is the backbone of Xbow Xbow (Crossbow) Class II Corrector US Patent No. 6,168,430 B1 Canadian Patent No. 2,392,021 Triple L Arch (Lower Labial Lingual) 1

2 Xbow (Crossbow) Cross or hybrid appliance Lower labial and lingual bow Two Phase Motto Only place full edgewise appliances on Class I s with adequate maxillary width. Xbow Two Phase Treatment Eruption Based Treatment Sequencing Early Expansion and Class II Correction IPR Bite Turbo/Class II elastics Indirect Precision Bonding Xbow, Secondary (Compensatory) Maxillary Expansion Maxillary Incisor and Canine Alignment: RME X 6 Primary Maxillary Expansion U yr L yr L yr U yr U yr Xbow s Target: Airway, Nasal Breathing, Palatal Tongue Posture Class I first bicuspid bilaterally in phase one =Blended Two Phase 4-6 months Class II springs on Xbow 1 month compensatory maxillary expansion + 5 months retention = 6 months During expansion retention we test the Class II correction. Replace springs on one or both sides, if necessary 12 months phase two. Pancherz H. AM J ORTHOD. 1982;82:

3 RME X 6 2 months exp/align Xbow + RME X 6 6 months Why bother with an extra appliance when I can do everything with a full edgewise appliance? Does two phase treatment really shorten the time in a full edgewise appliance? Incisor inclination changes produced by two compliance-free Class II correction protocols for the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusions. Miller et al. Angle Orthod

4 Two Phase Xbow (XB) vs Single Phase Forsus to the Arch Wire (FO) Conclusions The Xbow protocol averaged 6 fewer months of overall treatment and 10 fewer months of fixed edgewise appliances compared to the Forsus protocol. (26.75 months FO group vs months in the XB group) No differences in incisor inclination between treatment protocols were identified. Lower incisors proclined more the longer the treatment. How can single phase treatment take longer than two phase? Dealing with the Class II spring side effects late in treatment? RME X 6/Xbow Isolate the anterior teeth from the side effects of the Class II springs. 4

5 Ceph Studies University of Alberta Carlos Flores-Mir Allow rebound and settling of the side effects before phase two Ceph Studies Flores-Mir C, Barnett G, Higgins DW, Heo G, Major PW. Short-term skeletal and dental effects the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms. Am J Ortho Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136: doi: /j.ajodo Ceph Studies (2) Flores-Mir C, Young A, Greiss A, Woynoroski M, Peng J. Lower Incisor inclination changes during Xbow treatment according to vertical facial type. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80: doi: / Ceph Studies (3) Aziz T, Nassar U, Flores-Mir C. Prediction of lower incisor proclination during Xbow treatment based on initial cephalometric variables. Angle Othod 2012; 82: doi: / Ceph Studies (4) Flores-Mir C, McGrath L, Heo G, Major PW. Efficiency of Molar Distalization with the XBow Appliance Related to Second Molar Eruption Stage. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: doi:

6 Ceph Studies (5) Ceph Studies (6) Tieu L, Normando D, Toogood R, Flores-Mir C. External Apical Root Resorption generated by Forsus simultaneously with brackets vs. Xbow followed by brackets to correct Class II malocclusions. J World Fed Orthod 2015; 4: doi: /j.ejwf /ejo/cjs Ehsani S, Normando D, Nebbe M, Lagravere M, Flores-Mir C. Comparison of dental and skeletal changes in mild to moderate Class II malocclusions treated by either a Twin-Block or a Xbow appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2015, Nov;85(6): doi: / Ceph Studies (7) Miller R, Tieu L, Flores-Mir C. Incisor inclination changes produced by two compliance-free Class II correction protocols for the treatment of mild to moderate Class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83: doi: / Lower Incisor Inclination during Class II Malocclusion Treatment with the Xbow Appliance followed by Fixed Appliances Fern Leavens (4 th year dental student) Summer Research Project (2015) Under the supervision of Dr. Flores-Mir Unpublished 172 consecutively treated patients T 1 -T 2 = phase one Xbow, T 2 -T 3 = phase two full edgewise The mean lower incisor inclination changed from T 1 (99.1 o ) to T 2 (102.2 o ), with a mean difference of 3.1 o. The change is statistically significant (p<0.001). The mean lower incisor inclination changed from T 2 (102.2 o ) to T 3 (103.7 o ), with a mean difference of 1.5 o. The change is statistically significant (p=0.01). This may not be clinically significant. The mean lower incisor inclination changed from T 1 (99.1 o ) to T 3 (103.7 o ), with a mean difference of 4.6 o. The change is statistically significant (p<0.001). Prediction Equation for Lower Incisor Inclination Based on Initial Overbite Prediction equation is L1IncDiffT 3 T 1 = (OB). Or for every extra mm of OB (greater than ideal overbite of 2mm) there is an increase in lower incisor inclination of 1.3 o 6

7 Dental and Skeletal Variation Within the Range of Normal Is there any rationale for proclining lower incisors 4.6 degrees? JOHN S. CASKO, WALTER B. SHEPHERD The Angle Orthodontist: 1984, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp Untreated Class II and Class III Skeletal Sample with Ideal Occlusion (Naturally Compensated) Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession? S Ruf, K Hansen, H Pancherz No interrelation was found between the amount of incisor proclination and the development of gingival recession. This phenomenon may have been due to the fact that an approximately 80% spontaneous reversal of the incisor proclination after Herbst treatment occurs. July 1998 Volume 114 Number 1 Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review Joss-Vassalli I, Grebenstein C, Topouzelis N, Sculean A, Katsaros C The amount of recession found in studies with statistically significant differences between proclined and non-proclined incisors is small and the clinical consequence questionable. Immediate Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Effects of the Crown- or Banded Type Herbst Appliance on Class II division 1 Malocclusion A Systematic Review Barnett et al. Angle Orthod 2008 Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:

8 Measurement Pancherz Pancherz Current de Almeida Xbow Study 2005 SDJ AJO (EMMs) Md Angulations NSL/ML (MP-SN) (degrees) L1 Angulation IMPA (degrees) L1-NB (degrees) L1 Sagittal L1-NB (mm) OLperp L1 minus OLperp - Pg (mm) L6 Sagittal The analysis of the effect of treatment with functional appliances vs an untreated control group showed that skeletal changes were statistically significant, but unlikely to be clinically significant. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:24-36) OLperp L6 minus OLperp - Pg (mm) My Nullish Hypothesis The results are similar for all inter-arch Class II appliances. The differences are probably not clinically significant. 8