Literature DB >> 11029736

Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy.

T Baccetti1, L Franchi, J A McNamara.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment and posttreatment dentoskeletal changes in 2 groups of subjects with Class III malocclusions. Subjects were treated with a bonded acrylic-splint expander and a face mask, and the optimal timing for this treatment protocol was assessed. The treated sample (29 subjects) was divided into 2 groups according to the stage of dental development. The early treatment group consisted of 16 subjects in the early mixed dentitional (erupting permanent incisors and/or first molars), whereas the late treatment group consisted of 13 subjects in the late mixed dentition (erupting permanent canines and premolars). Cephalograms were available at 3 time periods: T(1), pretreatment, T(2), end of active treatment, and T(3), posttreatment. The mean T(1)-T(2) interval (active treatment period) and the mean T(2)-T(3) interval (posttreatment period) were approximately 1 year each in both treatment groups. None of the patients wore any skeletal retention appliance during the posttreatment period (T(2)-T(3)). Groups of subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion were used as controls at both observation intervals. A significant increase in the sagittal growth of the maxilla was seen only when treatment was performed in the early mixed dentition. A restraining effect on mandibular growth rate associated with a more upward and forward direction of condylar growth was found in both treatment groups. An increase in vertical intermaxillary relationships was observed in Class III patients treated in the late mixed dentition. Posttreatment, the Class III craniofacial growth pattern was re-established in the absence of any skeletal retention appliance. Relapse tendency affects the sagittal growth of the maxilla in the early treated subjects and the sagittal position of the mandible in the late treated subjects. Orthopedic treatment of Class III malocclusion in the early mixed dentition is able to induce more favorable craniofacial adaptations than treatment in the late mixed dentition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11029736     DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.109840

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


  39 in total

1.  Zygomaticomaxillary suture maturation: Part II-The influence of sutural maturation on the response to maxillary protraction.

Authors:  F Angelieri; A C Ruellas; M S Yatabe; L H S Cevidanes; L Franchi; C Toyama-Hino; H J De Clerck; T Nguyen; J A McNamara
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients.

Authors:  Hugo De Clerck; Lucia Cevidanes; Tiziano Baccetti
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion.

Authors:  Lucia Cevidanes; Tiziano Baccetti; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara; Hugo De Clerck
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Cephalometric variables used to predict the success of interceptive treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and face mask. A longitudinal study.

Authors:  Daniele Nóbrega Nardoni; Danilo Furquim Siqueira; Mauricio de Almeida Cardoso; Leopoldino Capelozza Filho
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb

5.  Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yifan Lin; Runzhi Guo; Liyu Hou; Zhen Fu; Weiran Li
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored maxillary protraction therapy in patients with UCLP: A 3-D preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Marilia Yatabe; Daniela Garib; Renato Faco; Hugo de Clerck; Bernardo Souki; Guilherme Janson; Tung Nguyen; Lucia Cevidanes; Antonio Ruellas
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Zygomaticomaxillary suture maturation: A predictor of maxillary protraction? Part I - A classification method.

Authors:  F Angelieri; L Franchi; L H S Cevidanes; C T Hino; T Nguyen; J A McNamara
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.826

8.  Bone-anchored maxillary protraction therapy in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: 3-dimensional assessment of maxillary effects.

Authors:  Marília Yatabe; Daniela Gamba Garib; Renato André de Souza Faco; Hugo de Clerck; Guilherme Janson; Tung Nguyen; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Antonio Carlos Ruellas
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions : A randomized controlled clinical study.

Authors:  Mehmet Ali Yavan; Aysegul Gulec; Metin Orhan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 1.938

10.  Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction.

Authors:  Claudia Toyama Hino; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Tung T Nguyen; Hugo J De Clerck; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.650

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.