Nangia A, Darendeliler MA. Finishing occlusion in Class II or Class III molar relation: therapeutic Class II and III. Aust Orthod J. 2001; 17:89-94
Philip-Alliez C, Le Gall M, Deroze D, Orthlieb J-D, Canal P. Therapeutic Class III molar occlusion. J Dentofacial Anom Orthod. 2009; 12:169-181
Angle EH. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth. Angle's System, 7th edn. Philadelphia: SS White Dental Manufacturing Co;
Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1972; 62:296-309
Kattner PF, Schneider BJ. Comparison of Roth appliance and standard edgewise appliance treatment results. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1993; 103:24-32
Clark JR, Evans RD. Functional occlusion: I. A review. J Orthod. 2001; 28:76-81
Seehra J, Fleming PS, DiBiase AT. Orthodontics and the ideal occlusion – a review. Orthod Update. 2009; 2:45-49
Wassell RW, Wilson NHF. Applied Occlusion.London: Quintessence; 2008
Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1998; 114:299-306
Weiland FJ. The role of occlusal discrepancies in the long-term stability of the mandibular arch. Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16:521-529
Ingervall B, Hahner R, Kessi S. Pattern of tooth contacts in eccentric mandibular positions in young adults. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66:169-176
Khalaf K, Miskelly J, Voge E, Macfarlane TV. Prevalence of hypodontia and associated factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthod. 2014; 41:299-316
Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Zaher AR. Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 1997; 111:18-27
Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Licciardello V, Barbato E. Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:211-216
Capelozza Filho L, Martins A, Mazzotini R, da Silva Filho OG. Effects of dental decompensation on the surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism. Int J Adult Orthod Orthog Surg. 1996; 11:165-180
This is the second article in a series on conundrums in orthodontics. A Class I molar relationship is a frequent aim of orthodontic treatment. There are, however, examples where intentionally finishing to a Class III molar relationship is the more pragmatic and preferable option. Pursuing this approach in the appropriate circumstances may, for example, prevent deleterious consequences to the facial profile or avoid the need for further dental extractions. This article explores the indications for finishing cases to a Class III molar relationship with illustrated clinical cases.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Dogmatic attempts to deliver Class I molar relationships, in all cases, without consideration of the consequences, have the potential to cause the patient harm. The orthodontist must then consider all possible options available, including those resulting in a Class III molar relationship.
Article
In this second paper on conundrums in orthodontics, we explore the uncommon approach of finishing treatment to a Class III molar relationship. A Class I molar relationship is often a key aim of treatment, but there are instances where dogmatic attempts to deliver this may beunwise because they have the potential to cause harm. Orthodontic treatment may intentionally culminate ina molar relationship that is either a full unit Class II or Class III.1,2 There are severalreasons why this may be the preferred option, and frequently, it is theresult of pragmatic treatment planning. While finishing to a Class II molar relationship is relatively common, this is not true for Class III molarrelationships. The latter is the focus of this article and here we will consider the indications for finishing cases to Class III molar relationship and illustrate these with clinical cases.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
