CASE STUDY rior and posterior positions with the proper overbite and overjet. The patient did not want to totally change her profile with bicuspid extractions. Post treatment goals were accomplished and the patient was very happy. (Fig. 10) Post Treat-ment Panoramic Xray (Fig. 11) revealed normal root length such that root resorption was not a prob-lem. The patient was followed up with 1.5-year post treatment pictures which revealed a stable and solid occlusion and minimal shift-ing. (Fig. 12) RETENTION Fig. 10 The rationale for holding the teeth in their treated position is to: b Allow for reorganization of the gingival and periodontal tissues. b Minimize changes due to growth. b Permit neuromuscular adaptation to the corrected tooth position. b Maintain teeth in unstable posi-tions (sometimes necessary due to compromise or esthetics). 5 The patient was instructed on the proper care for her retainers as well as the importance of it being worn according to instructions. In addition, the importance of bring-ing the appliance to all recare appointments was also emphasized. Fig. 11 REFERENCES 1. Horton, A. “Excessive Horizontal and Vertical Overbite in a Teenage Patient” Journal of the American Orthodontic Society. Fall 2019. 36 -40 2. Richardson E. R. “Atlas of Craniofa-cial Growth in Americans of African Descent” Vol. 26 3. Calderone J., Fogelson B. “Fact or Fiction? The Tongue is the Strongest Muscle in the Body” Scientific Amer-ica. August 15, 2014. 4. Contemporary Orthodontics, Profit 2nd edition, 1993, CV Mosbey, Table 6 -7 page 167. 5. Blake M. and Garvey M.T. (1998) Rationale for retention following orthodontic treatment. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. 64, 640 – 643. Fig. 12 12 Summer 2020 JAOS
Journal of the American Orthodontic Society Summer 2020: Page 12
