To: Editor, The Angle Orthodontist
I would like to congratulate the authors of the study for their attempt to shed light on the differences in growth of the mandible between Class I and Class II subjects. I have a few questions regarding case selection. I believe that the Class II sample should have been limited to those with mandibular retrusion. Class II malocclusion in general can be attributed to maxillary protrusion, mandibular retrusion, or a combination of both.1,2,3 Therefore, the sample in this study could have had a skeletal discrepancy attributed to either the maxilla, mandible or both. It may be possible that the difference is negligible between Class II subjects with excessive maxillary growth along with a normal mandible, and those with Class I relationships. Do you think the outcome would have been different if only Class II subjects with a deficient mandible were used in this study?
References
- 1.Rosenblum Robert E. Class II malocclusion: mandibular retrusion or maxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(1):49–62. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1995)065<0049:CIMMRO>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Antonini Antonino, Marinelli Andrea, Baroni Giulia, Franchi Lorenzo, Defraia Efisio. Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary Protrusion from the Deciduous Through the Mixed Dentition: A Longitudinal Study. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:980–986. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[980:CIMWMP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sidlauskas Antanas, Svalkauskiene Vilma, Sidlauskas Mantas. Assessment of Skeletal and Dental Pattern of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion with Relevance to Clinical Practice. Stomatologija Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2006;8:3–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]