Comparison of skeletal anchored facemask and tooth-borne facemask according to vertical skeletal pattern and growth stage

被引:26
作者
Koh, Sang-Duck [1 ]
Chung, Dong Hwa [1 ]
机构
[1] Dankook Univ, Dept Orthodont, Coll Dent, Chunan 330716, Chungnam, South Korea
关键词
Tooth-borne facemask; Skeletal anchored facemask; RAPID-MAXILLARY-EXPANSION; CLASS-III PATIENTS; MASK THERAPY; PROTRACTION; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.2319/060313-421.1
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the treatment effects between skeletal anchored facemask (SAFM) and tooth-borne facemask (TBFM) on different maturation stages and vertical skeletal patterns. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 28 patients who were treated with TBFM treatment and 19 patients who were treated with SAFM were reviewed. Cephalograms at the beginning and end of facemask application were obtained and assessed. Each treatment group was divided according to skeletal maturity and facial angle type. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used for comparisons of maturity stage and vertical skeletal type between the treatment groups. Results: SAFM produced a significant increase in the anterior-posterior position of orbitale (SNOr) and A point (N. per. to A). The high mandibular plane angle group of SAFM revealed greater anterior movement than that of TBFM without opening of the mandibular plane. In the SAFM group, the angulation of the maxillary incisors was retroclined at CVM3 compared to CVM4. In the younger group (CVM3), SAFM showed greater changes in the variables of orbitale (2.909 degrees) and maxillary length (5.818 mm), compared to TBFM. Conclusions: Compared with the TBFM group, the findings suggest significant advantages for the SAFM group for relative skeletal maturity and vertical skeletal pattern.
引用
收藏
页码:628 / 633
页数:6
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients [J].
Ahn, Hyo-Won ;
Kim, Keun-Woo ;
Yang, Il-Hyung ;
Choi, Jin-Young ;
Baek, Seung-Hak .
ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2012, 82 (05) :935-941
[2]  
Baccetti T., 2005, Seminars in Orthodontics, V11, P119, DOI [10.1053/J.SODO.2005.04.005, 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.005, DOI 10.1053/J.SODO.2005.04.005]
[4]   Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion [J].
Cevidanes, Lucia ;
Baccetti, Tiziano ;
Franchi, Lorenzo ;
McNamara, James A., Jr. ;
De Clerck, Hugo .
ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2010, 80 (05) :799-806
[5]  
CHA BK, 2007, KOREAN J ORTHOD, V37, P73
[6]  
Cha KS, 2003, ANGLE ORTHOD, V73, P26
[7]   Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: A controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients [J].
De Clerck, Hugo ;
Cevidanes, Lucia ;
Baccetti, Tiziano .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2010, 138 (05) :577-581
[8]  
Hong H, 2005, ANGLE ORTHOD, V75, P453
[9]   Cephalometric effects of face mask expansion therapy in Class III children: A comparison of three age groups [J].
Kapust, AJ ;
Sinclair, PM ;
Turley, PK .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1998, 113 (02) :204-212
[10]  
Keles A, 2002, ANGLE ORTHOD, V72, P387