Kerosuo H, Hausen H, Laine T, Shaw WC. The influence of incisal malocclusion on the social attractiveness of young adults in Finland. Eur J Orthod. 1995; 17::503-512
Klages U, Bruckner A, Zentner A. Dental aesthetics, self-awareness, and oral health-related quality of life in young adults. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26::507-514
Todd J, Dodd T.London: Office of Populations Census and Surveys; 1985
Salonen L, Mohlin B, Gotzlinger B Need and demand for orthodontic treatment in an adult Swedish population. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14:359-368
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Moray LJ. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1998; 13:97-106
Karlsen AT. Craniofacial characteristics in children with Angle Class II div 2 malocclusion compared with extreme deep bite. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64:123-130
Lapatki BG, Mager AS, Schulte-Moenting J, Jonas IE. The importance of the lip line and resting lip pressure in Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Dent Res. 2002; 81:323-328
McIntyre GT, Millett DT. Crown-root shape of the permanent maxillary central incisor. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:710-715
Holmes A. The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1992; 19:287-297
Shaw WC, Lewis HG, Robertson NR. Perception of malocclusion. Br Dent J. 1975; 138:211-216
Scott C, Goonewardene M, Murray K. Influence of lips on the perception of malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:152-162
Hunt O, Johnston C, Hepper P, Burden D, Stevenson M. The influence of maxillary gingival exposure on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod. 2002; 24:199-204
Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972; 62:296-309
Sarver DM. Principles of cosmetic dentistry in Orthodontics: Part 1. Shape and proportionality of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126:749-753
Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Stevenson MR. The influence of dental midline discrepancies on dental attractiveness ratings. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21:517-522
Ahmad I. Anterior dental aesthetics: dentofacial perspective. Br Dent J. 2005; 199:81-88
Morley J, Eubank J. Macroesthetic elements of smile design. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132:39-45
Lombardi RE. A method for the classification of errors in dental esthetics. J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 32:501-513
Levin E. Dental aesthetics and the golden proportion. J Prosthet Dent. 1978; 40:244-252
Bukhary SMN, Gill DS, Tredwin CJ The influence of varying maxillary lateral incisor dimensions on perceived smile aesthetics. Br Dent J. 2007; 203:687-693
Ahmad I. Anterior dental aesthetics: dental perspective. Br Dent J. 2005; 199::135-141
Canut JA, Arias S. A long-term evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21:377-386
Dumfahrt H, Schaffer H. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service: Part II – Clinical results. Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13::9-18
Fradeani M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. Porcelain laminate veneers: 6 to 12 year clinical evaluation – a retrospective study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent. 2005; 25:9-17
Ahmad I. Anterior dental aesthetics: gingival perspective. Br Dent J. 2005; 199:195-202
A restorative approach to the clinical and aesthetic management of adult patients with class ii division 2 incisor malocclusions Arijit Ray-Chaudhuri Richard J Porter Martin GD Kelleher Dental Update 2024 39:10, 707-709.
A Class II division 2 incisor malocclusion may be a cause of aesthetic and/or functional concern for some affected patients. Their particular concerns may include dark spaces around the misaligned teeth or uneven gingival contours. Orthodontic and/or orthognathic treatment can address some of these problems but frequently involves lengthy and expensive treatment in the adult dentition. Sadly, such treatment often produces an unstable result, with significant drawbacks such as the requirement for long-term retention. This article aims to describe alternative strategies for managing patients with this incisor malocclusion.
Clinical Relevance: This paper outlines a quicker, pragmatic and minimally destructive restorative treatment alternative to conventional orthodontic treatment and the associated long-term retention.
Article
A Class II division 2 incisor malocclusion may be defined as:
‘The permanent mandibular incisors occluding posterior to the cingulum plateau of retroclined permanent maxillary incisors.’1
The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the perceived undesirable features of this malocclusion and demonstrate a sensible restorative solution, with some clinical examples being given.
In addition to retroclined maxillary central incisors, the Class II division 2 (II/2) patient typically presents with maxillary lateral incisors which are proclined and mesio-labially rotated (Figure 1).
Less commonly, all four maxillary incisors may be retroclined, which may result in retroclination of the mandibular incisors and relative prominence of the maxillary canines (Figure 2).
The features of this malocclusion often give rise to a minimal overjet and, together with an increased overbite, may be deemed to be traumatic to the palatal and/or lower labial gingivae (Figure 3).
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
