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
  • [11] Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial
    de Souza, Ricardo Alves
    Neto, Jose Rino
    de Paiva, Joao Batista
    PROGRESS IN ORTHODONTICS, 2019, 20 (01)
  • [12] Dentofacial effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction on prepubertal children with maxillary deficiency: a randomized controlled trial
    Ahmed Mohamed Kamel
    Nour Eldin Tarraf
    Ahmed Maher Fouda
    Ahmad Mohammed Hafez
    Ahmed El-Bialy
    Benedict Wilmes
    Progress in Orthodontics, 24
  • [13] Dentoskeletal effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: Evaluating the role of mandibular anchorage bar and night facemask
    Manha, Fernando Rayes
    da Silva, Tafnes Pereira
    Andre, Cristiane Barros
    Valdrighi, Heloisa Cristina
    de Menezes, Carolina Carmo
    Vedovello, Silvia A. S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2025, 167 (04) : 436 - 443
  • [14] The orthopaedic effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in a beagle model
    Ito, Yosuke
    Kawamoto, Tatsuo
    Moriyama, Keiji
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2014, 36 (06) : 632 - 640
  • [15] Effects of Maxillary Protraction with Skeletal Anchorage and Petit-Type Facemask in High-Angle Class III Patients: A Retrospective Study
    Kale, Burak
    Buyukcavus, Muhammed Hilmi
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2020, 14 (03)
  • [16] Long-term skeletal and dental effects of facemask versus chincup treatment in Class III patients
    Wendl, B.
    Stampfl, M.
    Muchitsch, A. P.
    Droschl, H.
    Winsauer, H.
    Walter, A.
    Wendl, M.
    Wendl, T.
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS-FORTSCHRITTE DER KIEFERORTHOPADIE, 2017, 78 (04): : 293 - 299
  • [17] Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients
    Ahn, Hyo-Won
    Kim, Keun-Woo
    Yang, Il-Hyung
    Choi, Jin-Young
    Baek, Seung-Hak
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2012, 82 (05) : 935 - 941
  • [18] Effects of the long-term use of maxillary protraction facemasks with skeletal anchorage on pharyngeal airway dimensions in growing patients with cleft lip and palate
    Kim, Jung-Eun
    Yim, Sunjin
    Choi, Jin-Young
    Kim, Sukwha
    Kim, Su-Jung
    Baek, Seung-Hak
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2020, 50 (04) : 238 - 248
  • [19] Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy
    Ozbilen, Elvan Onem
    Yilmaz, Hanife Nuray
    Kucukkeles, Nazan
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2019, 49 (01) : 49 - 58
  • [20] A comparison of maxillary posterior changes following facemask therapy: Skeletal anchorage versus tooth-borne anchorage
    Lee, Hyeon-Jong
    Jeong, Hannah
    Park, Jae Hyun
    Choi, Dong-Soon
    Jang, Insan
    Cha, Bong-Kuen
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2024, 27 (02) : 303 - 312