Dentofacial and skeletal effects of two orthodontic maxillary protraction protocols: bone anchors versus facemask

被引:0
|
作者
Tabellion, Maike [1 ]
Lisson, Joerg Alexander [1 ]
机构
[1] Saarland Univ, Dept Orthodont G56, Kirrberger Str 100, D-66424 Homburg, Saar, Germany
关键词
Maxillary retrognathia; Mandibular prognathia; Maxillary protraction; Bone anchors; Facemask; 3-DIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT; TRACTION; THERAPY; GROWTH; FORCE; MASK;
D O I
10.1186/s13005-024-00462-w
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background Maxillary retrognathia and/or mandibular prognathia are resulting in class III malocclusion. Regarding orthodontic class III malocclusion treatment, the literature reports several treatment approaches. This comparative clinical study investigated two maxillary protraction protocols including bone anchors and Delaire type facemask. Methods Cephalometric radiographs of n = 31 patients were used for data acquisition. The patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment protocol: bone anchored protraction (n = 12, 8 female, 4 male; mean age 11.00 +/- 1.76 years; average application: 13.50 +/- 5.87 months) and facemask protraction (n = 19, 11 female, 8 male; mean age 6.74 +/- 1.15 years; average application: 9.95 +/- 4.17 months). The evaluation included established procedures for measurements of the maxilla, mandibula, incisor inclination and soft tissue. Statistics included Shapiro-Wilk- and T-Tests for the radiographs. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results The cephalometric analysis showed differences among the two groups. SNA angle showed significant improvements during protraction with bone anchors (2.30 +/- 1.18 degrees) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 2.01 +/- 2.65 mm. SNA angle improved also during protraction with facemask (1.22 +/- 2.28 degrees) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 1.85 +/- 4.09 mm. Proclination of maxillary incisors was larger in patients with facemask (3.35 +/- 6.18 degrees) and ML-SN angle increased more (1.05 +/- 1.51 degrees) than in patients with bone anchors. Loosening rate of bone anchors was 14.58%. Conclusions Both treatment protocols led to correction of a class III malocclusion. However, this study was obtained immediately after protraction treatment and longitudinal observations after growth spurt will be needed to verify the treatment effects over a longer period. The use of skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction reduces unwanted side effects and increases skeletal effects needed for class III correction.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion
    Cevidanes, Lucia
    Baccetti, Tiziano
    Franchi, Lorenzo
    McNamara, James A., Jr.
    De Clerck, Hugo
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2010, 80 (05) : 799 - 806
  • [2] Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction Miniscrew implants versus rapid maxillary expanders
    Ge, Yuan Shu
    Liu, Jin
    Chen, Lin
    Han, Jian Li
    Guo, Xin
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2012, 82 (06) : 1083 - 1091
  • [3] Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment
    Ngan, Peter
    Wilmes, Benedict
    Drescher, Dieter
    Martin, Chris
    Weaver, Bryan
    Gunel, Erdogan
    PROGRESS IN ORTHODONTICS, 2015, 16
  • [4] Occlusal and Skeletal Changes induced by Protraction Facemask combined with Slow Maxillary Expansion
    Tarnaoki, Sachio
    Ishikawa, Hiroyuki
    Hata, Shozaburo
    Takata, Shunsuke
    Yasunaga, Madoka
    Abe, Akiko
    JOURNAL OF HARD TISSUE BIOLOGY, 2017, 26 (02) : 141 - 148
  • [5] Dentofacial effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction on prepubertal children with maxillary deficiency: a randomized controlled trial
    Kamel, Ahmed Mohamed
    Tarraf, Nour Eldin
    Fouda, Ahmed Maher
    Hafez, Ahmad Mohammed
    El-Bialy, Ahmed
    Wilmes, Benedict
    PROGRESS IN ORTHODONTICS, 2023, 24 (01)
  • [6] Effects of Cleft Type, Facemask Anchorage Method, and Alveolar Bone Graft on Maxillary Protraction: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis
    Yang, Il-Hyung
    Chang, Young-Il
    Kim, Tae-Woo
    Ahn, Sug-Joon
    Lim, Won-Hee
    Lee, Nam-Ki
    Baek, Seung-Hak
    CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2012, 49 (02): : 221 - 229
  • [7] Comparative efficacy of the bone-anchored maxillary protraction protocols for orthopaedic treatment in skeletal Class III malocclusion: A Bayesian network meta-analysis
    Hu, Shoushan
    An, Ke
    Peng, Yiran
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2022, 25 (02) : 243 - 250
  • [8] A comparative evaluation of midfacial soft tissue and nasal bone changes with two maxillary protraction protocols: Tooth-borne vs skeletal-anchored facemasks
    Jang, Young-Kwang
    Chung, Dong-Hwa
    Lee, Jin-Woo
    Lee, Sang-Min
    Park, Jae Hyun
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2021, 24 : 5 - 12
  • [9] Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction
    Hino, Claudia Toyama
    Cevidanes, Lucia H. S.
    Nguyen, Tung T.
    De Clerck, Hugo J.
    Franchi, Lorenzo
    McNamara, James A., Jr.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2013, 144 (05) : 705 - 714
  • [10] Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial
    Ricardo Alves de Souza
    José Rino Neto
    João Batista de Paiva
    Progress in Orthodontics, 20