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
  • [21] Three dimensional evaluations of airway changes after maxillary expansion and protraction using modified tandem appliance versus facemask in cleft lip and palate patients
    Elshal, Mohamed G.
    Ghafar, Mohamed Abdel M.
    Makarem, Omar Aboul
    Mohamed, Mostafa A.
    Refai, Wael M.
    Ibrahim, Mohamed E.
    Hashem, Ahmed Sh
    MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2020, 24 (106) : 4532 - 4540
  • [22] Changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone position after maxillary protraction with different alternate rapid maxillary expansion and construction protocols: A prospective clinical study
    Celikoglu, Mevlut
    Buyukcavus, Muhammet Hilmi
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2017, 87 (04) : 519 - 525
  • [23] Comparison of treatment effects of different maxillary protraction methods in skeletal class III patients
    Buyukcavus, Muhammed Hilmi
    Kale, Burak
    Aydemir, Bugra
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2020, 23 (04) : 445 - 454
  • [24] Biomechanical Effects on Maxillary Protraction of the Craniofacial Skeleton With Cleft Lip and Palate After Alveolar Bone Graft
    Chen, Zhengxi
    Pan, Xiaogang
    Shao, Qinghua
    Chen, Zhenqi
    JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY, 2013, 24 (02) : 446 - 453
  • [25] Comparison of changes in the nasal cavity, pharyngeal airway, and maxillary sinus volumes after expansion and maxillary protraction with two protocols: Rapid palatal expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction
    Liu, Weitao
    Zhou, Shaonan
    Yen, Edwin
    Zou, Bingshuang
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2023, 53 (03) : 175 - 184
  • [26] Dentoskeletal effects of facemask therapy in skeletal Class III cleft patients with or without bone graft
    Zhang, Yixin
    Jia, Haichao
    Fu, Zhen
    Huang, Yiping
    Wang, Zhizun
    Guo, Runzhi
    Shen, Jiaan
    Li, Weiran
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2018, 153 (04) : 542 - 549
  • [27] Individualized 3D-Printed Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction Device for Growth Modification in Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
    Kim, Minji
    Li, Jingwen
    Kim, Sehyang
    Kim, Wonho
    Kim, Sun-Hyun
    Lee, Sung-Min
    Park, Young Long
    Yang, Sook
    Kim, Jin-Woo
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2021, 11 (11):
  • [28] Clinical effects of maxillary protraction in different stages of dentition in skeletal class III children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Jiangwei
    Wang, Yingxue
    Yang, Yingying
    Zhang, Lu
    Hong, Zheng
    Ji, Wei
    Zhang, Linkun
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2022, 25 (04) : 549 - 561
  • [29] Maxillary protraction effects on anterior crossbites - Repaired unilateral cleft versus noncleft prepubertal boys
    Jia, Haichao
    Li, Weiran
    Lin, Jiuxiang
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2008, 78 (04) : 617 - 624
  • [30] Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Effects of Maxillary Protraction Using Tooth- and Miniscrew-Anchored Devices in Patients with Class III Malocclusion with Maxillary Deficiency: A Retrospective Follow-Up Study
    Baik, Jong-Chan
    Choi, Youn-Kyung
    Jeon, Hyeran Helen
    Kim, Sung-Hun
    Kim, Seong-Sik
    Park, Soo-Byung
    Kim, Yong-Il
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2023, 13 (18):