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

被引:1
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 49 条
[41]   Skeletal and Dental Effects of Maxillary Protraction in Patients with Angle Class III Malocclusion: A Meta-Analysis [Therapieeffekte der maxillären Protraktion bei Patienten mit einer Angle-Klasse III: Eine Metaanalyse] [J].
Jäger A. ;
Braumann B. ;
Kim C. ;
Wahner S. .
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie, 2001, 62 (4) :275-284
[42]   Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary effects of two orthopaedic protocols for the treatment of Class III malocclusion: A prospective study [J].
Fischer, Brittany ;
Masucci, Caterina ;
Ruellas, Antonio ;
Cevidanes, Lucia ;
Giuntini, Veronica ;
Nieri, Michele ;
Nardi, Cosimo ;
Franchi, Lorenzo ;
McNamara, James A., Jr. ;
Defraia, Efisio .
ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2018, 21 (04) :248-257
[43]   Maxillary shape after primary cleft closure and before alveolar bone graft in two different management protocols: A comparative morphometric study [J].
Girinon, F. ;
Ketoff, S. ;
Hennocq, Q. ;
Kogane, N. ;
Ullman, N. ;
Kadlub, N. ;
Galliani, E. ;
Neiva-Vaz, C. ;
Vazquez, M. P. ;
Picard, A. ;
Khonsari, R. H. .
JOURNAL OF STOMATOLOGY ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2019, 120 (05) :406-409
[44]   Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion versus Twin Block appliance on mandibular growth in skeletal Class II patients [J].
Jia-Nan Zhang ;
Si Chen ;
Cheng-Yi Huang ;
Chong Zhong ;
Jing Jin ;
Feng-Yang Yu ;
Zan-Zan Zhang ;
Hai-Ping Lu .
BMC Oral Health, 20
[45]   Rationale and design for efficacy and safety evaluation of Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction (BAMP) for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate with skeletal anterior crossbite: a single-arm, open-label, non-randomised prospective study protocol [J].
Shimada, Eriya ;
Kanetaka, Hiroyasu ;
Yamauchi, Kensuke ;
Takahashi, Tetsu ;
Nochioka, Kotaro ;
Igarashi, Kaoru .
BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09)
[46]   A retrospective comparison of two protocols for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion in prepubertal children: hybrid hyrax expander with mandibular miniplates and rapid maxillary expansion with face mask [J].
Tarraf, Nour Eldin ;
Dalci, Oyku ;
Dalci, Kerem ;
Altug, Ayse Tuba ;
Darendeliler, M. Ali .
PROGRESS IN ORTHODONTICS, 2023, 24 (01)
[47]   Effects of bone anchored maxillary protraction on patients with unilateral cleft lip/palate or isolated cleft palate and hypoplastic maxilla: a 6-year follow-up case control study [J].
Kiukkonen, Anu ;
Rice, David ;
Railavo, Sirpa .
ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2024, 94 (04) :448-454
[48]   Three-dimensional pharyngeal airway and hyoid bone changes in skeletal class I malocclusion treated with extraction and non-extraction protocols: a comparative study of fixed orthodontic appliance and clear aligners [J].
Al-Somairi, Majedh Abdo Ali ;
Yan, Yuwen ;
Alhammadi, Maged S. ;
Al-Worafi, Naseem Ali ;
Alyafrusee, Enas Senan ;
Almaqrami, Bushra Sufyan ;
Sharhan, Hasan M. ;
Al-Tayar, Barakat ;
Zheng, Bowen ;
Liu, Yi .
CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2025, 29 (06)
[49]   Long-term skeletal and dental effects of facemask versus chincup treatment in Class III patients: A retrospective study; [Langfristige skelettale und dentale Auswirkungen der Klasse-III-Behandlung mit Gesichtsmaske vs. Kinnkappe: Eine retrospektive Untersuchung] [J].
Wendl B. ;
Stampfl M. ;
Muchitsch A.P. ;
Droschl H. ;
Winsauer H. ;
Walter A. ;
Wendl M. ;
Wendl T. .
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie, 2017, 78 (4) :293-299