Literature DB >> 10893473

Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan?

N Suda1, M Ishii-Suzuki, K Hirose, S Hiyama, S Suzuki, T Kuroda.   

Abstract

A major skeletal effect of reverse-pull headgear is a forward movement of maxilla, via remodeling of the circummaxillary sutures. We hypothesized that an evaluation of bone age would help to determine the effective planning and optimum timing using reverse-pull headgear. Differences in the cephalometric measurements between the initiation of treatment and after 1 year of treatment were calculated from 60 Japanese patients in mixed dentition with skeletal Class III malocclusions. Bone age was appraised by the Tanner-Whitehouse 2 method using hand-wrist radiographs at the initiation of treatment. The control groups (mean chronologic age, male 10.3 years and female 9.6 years) were treated by lingual arch and/or chincup, and the reverse-pull headgear groups (mean chronologic age, male 9.7 years and female 9.4 years) by reverse-pull headgear. The forward movement of the maxilla and increase in the palatal length were larger in the bone age-based younger male reverse-pull headgear subgroup than in the bone age-based older male reverse-pull headgear subgroup. The increase of SNA in the male reverse-pull headgear group was significantly larger than that of the female reverse-pull headgear group, which had a more mature skeletal status than the former. In the male reverse-pull headgear group, the forward movement of the maxilla and increase in the palatal length showed significant inverse correlation with the bone age, but not with the chronologic age. These results support our hypothesis that the bone age is a useful clinical indicator to determine the effective treatment plan with reverse-pull headgear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10893473     DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.104491

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  6 in total

1.  New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage.

Authors:  Seung-Hak Baek; Keun-Woo Kim; Jin-Young Choi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Burçin Akan; Türkan Sezen Erhamza
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2021-06-30

3.  The Effects of Maxillary Protraction with or without Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Age Factors in Treating Class III Malocclusion: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Hong-Chen Qu; Mo Yu; Yang Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Assessment of the duration of the pubertal growth spurt in patients with skeletal open bite : A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Agnieszka Szemraj-Folmer; Anna Wojtaszek-Słomińska; Bogna Racka-Pilszak; Małgorzata Kuc-Michalska
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Maxillary protraction and vertical control utilizing skeletal anchorage for midfacial-maxillary deficiency.

Authors:  Kensuke Matsumoto; Nipul Tanna
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2021-12-15

6.  Analysis of pretreatment factors associated with stability in early class III treatment.

Authors:  Yasuko Inoue; Toru Deguchi; James K Hartsfield; Wakako Tome; Noriyuki Kitai
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.750

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.