angle classified malocclusion in the sagittal plane based on the dental relationship and ignoring the skeletal relation . the disto - occlusion is categorized into division 1 and division 2 based on the spatial orientation of upper anterior teeth . apart from these basic features , there were no characteristic features pertaining to class ii div 2 in the literature . the class ii div 2 malocclusion is rare and procuring the study sample is always a difficult task . even though angle gave the classification of malocclusion in 1890s , there is still lack of clarity regarding the classical features of class ii div 2 malocclusion . moorrees et al . , buschang et al . , and walkow and peck analyzed the study models of class ii div 1 and div 2 and summarized that class ii div 2 malocclusion exhibited decreased intercanine width . assessed the cephalometric parameters between these two groups and found that mandibular retrognathism was a similar feature in both the groups . in the current scenario , an orthodontist should be abreast with the classical appearance of a malocclusion , as this may help the professional to choose the best treatment possible for the patient . the aim of this study is to differentiate the cephalometric and transverse arch dimensions between angle 's class ii div 1 and div 2 malocclusions , in order to understand the diagnostic features of class ii div 2 malocclusion . the diagnostic study casts and the lateral cephalometric radiographs required for the study were obtained from the hospital records of drs sudha and nageswara rao siddhartha institute of dental sciences . a total of 612 pre - treatment records were obtained , with age ranging from 14 to 25 years ; of these , 317 were class ii div 1 and 295 were class ii div 2 malocclusions . the inclusion criteria were angle 's class ii molar relationship on both the sides , with all the permanent teeth erupted , and an increased horizontal and vertical overlapping greater than 5 mm and 4 mm , respectively , for class ii div 1 malocclusion and overjet of 3 mm and 100% overbite for class ii div 2 malocclusion . the transverse arch width dimensions were measured by using digital vernier calipers ( parameters used are explained in figures ) . an appropriate statistical test was used to assess the cephalometric variables and transverse arch dimensions between the study groups . intragroup evaluation was done at first to rule out sexual difference within the study groups . after the final verification that the sex did not have a variable difference , males and females in either of the study group were combined to evaluate the cephalometric and transverse arch dimensions . the vertical linear variables and dental variables on the cephalometric radiograph [ figures 14 and table 1 ] revealed a notable variation ( jarabak ratio , lower facial third and down 's mandibular plane angle ) . skeletal sagittal parameters skeletal vertical parameters  angular skeletal vertical parameters  linear dental and soft tissue parameters mean comparison of cephalometric parameters between class ii div 1 and class ii div 2 groups the maxillary transverse arch dimensions [ figure 5 and table 2 ] were comparatively more in angle 's class ii div 2 group of malocclusion . a notable difference was not found with respect to the mandibular arch width parameters [ figure 6 and table 2 ] . ( a ) maxillary intercanine width ( b ) basal arch width at maxillary canines ( c ) maxillary intermolar width ( d ) basal arch width at maxillary molars mean comparison of arch width parameters between class ii div 1 and class ii div 2 groups mandibular arch width parameters . ( a ) mandibular intercanine width ( b ) basal arch width at mandibular canines ( c ) mandibular intermolar width ( d ) basal arch width at mandibular canines in 1950s , studies were conducted in the department of orthodontics , university of illinois to evaluate the dental features and skeletal arrangement among various malocclusions . vallera and nelson reported that analyzing cephalometric radiograph helps the orthodontist to arrive at treatment planning . reported that the transverse arch dimensions and the apical bases , too , have a diagnostic potential . hence , we have evaluated both cephalometric and transverse arch dimensions in the present study . the sna , snb , and anb angles were measured in both the groups because of their importance in orthodontic diagnosis . to analyze the position and spatial orientation of bony bases , certain important parameters from mcnamara analysis and schwartz analysis the dental parameters included in the study were orientation of upper incisor with sella - nasion plane ( ui - sn plane ) and lower incisor to mandibular plane ( go - me ) . facial angle , skeletal convexity , h - line angle , and lower lip to ricketts e - line were included as a part of the study . both the groups were shown to have class ii skeletal bases with a mild retrognathic mandible . these results were in accordance with pancherz et al . and isik et al . and contrasted with rosenblum , demisch et al . the skeletal vertical parameters [ figures 2 and 3 ] showed a clear hypodivergent growth pattern with decreased lower facial thirds in class ii div 2 group of malocclusion [ table 1 ] . the maxillary anterior teeth were absolutely retroclined in the class ii div 2 group , as per angle 's abbreviation of class ii div 2 malocclusion . lower anteriors were near normal without much difference between both the groups [ table 1 ] . there was no significant difference between the two study groups with respect to the soft tissue measurements except for the linear measurement of lower lip to ricketts e - line . the lower lip was slightly behind the ricketts e - line in class ii div 2 group . this might be the reason for prominent chin , deep mentolabial sulcus , and poor retention ( excessive pressure exerted by lower lip on the upper anteriors ) . the maxillary arch width parameters [ figure 5 and table 2 ] were increased with a statistically significant difference in class ii div 2 group of malocclusion . these results educate the orthodontist to choose for non - extraction mode of therapy , unless the patient 's soft tissue integument demands for extraction . as there is normal or increased maxillary arch width and narrowing of mandibular arch width , there is more probability for the occurrence of malalignment in the lower arch in class ii div 2 group . the main setback of the study is that we have focused only on the lateral cephalograms and study models , not considering the clinical examination . the study had focused only on the local population and , therefore , some results may be contradicting with the world 's averages . the sna , snb , and anb angles were measured in both the groups because of their importance in orthodontic diagnosis . to analyze the position and spatial orientation of bony bases , certain important parameters from mcnamara analysis and schwartz analysis the dental parameters included in the study were orientation of upper incisor with sella - nasion plane ( ui - sn plane ) and lower incisor to mandibular plane ( go - me ) . facial angle , skeletal convexity , h - line angle , and lower lip to ricketts e - line were included as a part of the study . both the groups were shown to have class ii skeletal bases with a mild retrognathic mandible . these results were in accordance with pancherz et al . and isik et al . and contrasted with rosenblum , demisch et al . , and peck et al the skeletal vertical parameters [ figures 2 and 3 ] showed a clear hypodivergent growth pattern with decreased lower facial thirds in class ii div 2 group of malocclusion [ table 1 ] . this is in accordance with houston , bjork and skeiller , pancherz et al . , karlsen , and peck et al . the anticlockwise rotation in class ii div 2 malocclusion may be because of lack of incisor support . the maxillary anterior teeth were absolutely retroclined in the class ii div 2 group , as per angle 's abbreviation of class ii div 2 malocclusion . lower anteriors were near normal without much difference between both the groups [ table 1 ] . there was no significant difference between the two study groups with respect to the soft tissue measurements except for the linear measurement of lower lip to ricketts e - line . the lower lip was slightly behind the ricketts e - line in class ii div 2 group . this might be the reason for prominent chin , deep mentolabial sulcus , and poor retention ( excessive pressure exerted by lower lip on the upper anteriors ) . the maxillary arch width parameters [ figure 5 and table 2 ] were increased with a statistically significant difference in class ii div 2 group of malocclusion . the results of the present study were similar to buschang et al . , staley et al . , and sayin and turkkahraman . these results educate the orthodontist to choose for non - extraction mode of therapy , unless the patient 's soft tissue integument demands for extraction . as there is normal or increased maxillary arch width and narrowing of mandibular arch width , there is more probability for the occurrence of malalignment in the lower arch in class ii div 2 group . nowadays the treatment plan is mainly based on the soft tissue integument of the patient . the main setback of the study is that we have focused only on the lateral cephalograms and study models , not considering the clinical examination . the study had focused only on the local population and , therefore , some results may be contradicting with the world 's averages . the classical features of angle 's class ii div 2 group of malocclusion were as follows : 
 orthognathic maxilla and a mild retrognathic mandiblemarked horizontal growth pattern with forwardly rotated mandibular baseskeletal deep biteretroclined upper incisors with near - normal lower anteriorslower lip placed slightly behind e - line with prominent chinincreased transverse maxillary values ( intercanine and intermolar widths ; basal arch width at canines and molars)restricted mandibular arch width , hence , increased chances for crowding in lower arch . orthognathic maxilla and a mild retrognathic mandible marked horizontal growth pattern with forwardly rotated mandibular base retroclined upper incisors with near - normal lower anteriors lower lip placed slightly behind e - line with prominent chin increased transverse maxillary values ( intercanine and intermolar widths ; basal arch width at canines and molars ) restricted mandibular arch width , hence , increased chances for crowding in lower arch .