Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the mandibular arch shape and the vertical skeletal pattern in growing patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 73 Caucasian patients (33 males and 40 females; mean age 9.4) were retrospectively enrolled from a pool of patients treated in chronological order at the Department of Orthodontics, University of Foggia, Italy, from April 2018 to December 2021. Each patient received a laterolateral radiograph and a digital scan of the dental arch. Eight cephalometric parameters (lower gonial angle, intermaxillary angle, divergence angle, Wits index, Jarabak ratio, OP-MP angle, PP-OP angle, and ANB) and five dental measurements (posterior mandibular arch width, anterior mandibular arch width, mandibular occlusal angle, posterior width on distobuccal molar cusps, and molar angle) were analyzed and then compared. A Spearman’s rho correlation test between the cephalometric measurements and the dental measurements was performed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: A negative statistically significant correlation was found between the Jarabak ratio and the intermolar angle; a statistically significant correlation was also observed between the Wits index, the posterior mandibular width, and the occlusal mandibular angle; the ANB angle and the occlusal mandibular angle; the intermaxillary angle (PP-PM) and the mandibular occlusal angle, posterior mandibular width on the disto-vestibular cusp, and the intermolar angle; and the OP-MP angle and mandibular occlusal angle and the posterior mandibular width on the disto-vestibular cusp. Conclusions: The mandibular arch form may be related to certain predisposing features in craniofacial morphology, such as jaw divergence, the Jarabak ratio, and the intermaxillary angle.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate: (1) changes in the curve of Spee (COS) after clear aligner therapy and (2) whether such changes correlated with the patient’s skeletal patterns. Materials and methods: Three-dimensional mandibular models of 106 patients (47 males and 59 females; mean age 22.3 SD ± 3.4 years) treated with clear aligners were retrospectively analysed. The perpendicular distance between the occlusal reference plane and the buccal cusp tip of each lateral tooth was measured. Five angular cephalometric measurements (PP-MP, PP-OP, OP-MP, AFH, and PFH) were performed and correlated with the T1–T0 difference in linear distances. The patients were divided into three groups according to facial divergence. Variance analysis with Tukey post hoc correction was performed to evaluate the differences among groups. Results: The one-way ANOVA test showed a statistically significant difference for all analysed variables, except for the change in the distance of the second molar from the occlusal reference plane. Tukey’s HSD test showed the following differences: In normodivergents, the T1–T0 difference in the distance of the first molar from the occlusal plane was 1 mm greater than that observed in the hyperdivergent group (p < 0.05); in the normodivergent group, the T1–T0 difference in the distance of the second premolar from the occlusal plane was 1.23 mm greater than that observed in the hyperdivergent group (p < 0.05), while in the hypodivergent group, it was 1.08 mm greater than in the hyperdivergent group (p < 0.05); finally, in normodivergents, the T1–T0 difference in the distance of the first premolar from the occlusal plane was 0.97 mm greater than that observed in the hyperdivergent group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Treatment with aligners did not lead to a clinically significant change in COS depth. However, when dividing the sample into groups based on craniofacial divergence, COS depth change differed significantly between the three groups.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate: (i) maxillary occlusal plane changes after clear aligners therapy with a 3D measurement technique; and (ii) as a secondary outcome, if such changes were correlated to the patient’s 1axilla-mandibular divergence. 3D maxillary models of 32 patients (7 males and 25 females; mean age 22.3 +/− 3.4 year) treated with clear aligners were analyzed. The angle (α) between a reference palatine plane and a maxillary occlusal plane was measured. Five angular cephalometric measurements (NSL/MP; PP-OP; OP-MP; PP-MP; PFH/AFH%) were performed and related to Δα. The subjects were further divided into three groups according to facial divergence. After aligner treatment, Δα increased in hyperdivergent patients and decreased in hypodivergent patients (p < 0.05). Δα showed a significant positive correlation with NSL/MP (rho = 0.44) and negative correlation with PFH/AFH% (rho = −0.53). Aligners treatment produced a counterlockwise rotation of the maxillary occlusal plane, even if this rotation occurs differently depending on divergence.

This case report presents an orthodontic treatment conducted on a 13-year-old girl with bilateral Class II malocclusion and a mandibular impacted canine. The presence of an impacted tooth necessitates careful consideration of the timing of orthodontic treatment, the appropriate surgical procedure to expose the tooth, the specific orthodontic mechanics involved, and the potential problems that may arise, all of which depend on the type and location of the canine impaction in the jaw. The treatment plan included a surgical procedure to expose the impacted tooth and orthodontic traction to guide it into position. Correction of the Class II Division 1 malocclusion utilized a specialized technique called the “reverse pin”, reducing vertical side effects. The revised version maintains clarity and key information about the case report and treatment.

(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the facial profile changes of patients treated for class II skeletal malocclusions with an elastodontic appliance compared to those treated with the Herbst appliance and a control group. Methods: Forty class II patients were treated using an elastodontic appliance (Group EA) and were compared to 40 patients treated with the Herbst appliance (Group H) and to 40 untreated class II children (Group C). Aesthetic profile variables were analysed using Arnett’s analysis. Cephalograms were compared pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired-samples t-test was used for pairwise comparison of cephalometric measurements taken at T0 and T1. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test were performed to assess differences between the groups. Results: In the elastodontic group, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog–TVL and B–TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with an elastodontic appliance, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog–TVL and B–TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with the Herbst appliance, the inclination of the lower incisors increased by 6.11°. Furthermore, the treatment resulted in reductions in the Pog–TVL distance (2.58 mm), the B–TVL distance (2.26 mm), and the LL–TVL distance (2.31 mm). Conclusions: The profile changes achieved by both devices are favourable for correcting class II skeletal malocclusion.