Literature DB >> 17218717

Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies.

Ikue Yoshida1, Takahiro Shoji, Itaru Mizoguchi.   

Abstract

Several cephalometric studies and case reports have described the effects of treatment with a maxillary protraction appliance (MPA) and chincap appliance. The purpose of this investigation was to identify differences in the response to treatment with a combined MPA and chincap in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies: short- (low mandibular plane angle) and long- (high mandibular plane angle) face types. The cephalograms used in this study were of 42 Japanese girls at the beginning of treatment (T0, mean age 10.1 years) and at removal of the appliance (T1, mean age 11.5 years). The subjects were divided into two groups (short and long face) according to the inclination of the mandibular plane at T0. Total anterior face height, upper and lower face height, occlusal plane, and gonial angle were significantly larger in the long-face group at T0. In both groups, significant increases in SNA, maxillary size (A'-Ptm'), and ANB were noted during treatment. Compared with the long-face group, the short-face group showed greater forward displacement and size increment of the maxillary body, while there were no significant differences in changes in mandibular size or position between the two groups. These results indicate that the vertical dimensions of the craniofacial skeleton are important factors in the orthopaedic effects of a MPA and chincap and the prognosis for skeletal Class III patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17218717     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  6 in total

1.  Factors associated with long-term vertical skeletal changes induced by facemask therapy in patients with Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  Hee-Jong Kwak; Hae-Jin Park; Yoon-Ji Kim; Dong-Yul Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 2.  Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition.

Authors:  Xiaoxia Feng; Jianhua Li; Yu Li; Zhihe Zhao; Sen Zhao; Jue Wang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Treatment of maxillary deficiency by miniplates: a case report.

Authors:  Rahman Showkatbakhsh; Abdolreza Jamilian; Mohammad Behnaz
Journal:  ISRN Surg       Date:  2011-05-10

4.  Retrospective 25-year follow-up of treatment outcomes in angle Class III patients : Early versus late treatment.

Authors:  B Wendl; A P Muchitsch; H Winsauer; A Walter; H Droschl; N Jakse; M Wendl; T Wendl
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 5.  Bone- and dentoalveolar-anchored dentofacial orthopedics for Class III malocclusion: new approaches, similar objectives? : a systematic review.

Authors:  Marta Morales-Fernández; Alejandro Iglesias-Linares; Rosa Maria Yañez-Vico; Asuncion Mendoza-Mendoza; Enrique Solano-Reina
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 6.  Treatment Options for Class III Malocclusion in Growing Patients with Emphasis on Maxillary Protraction.

Authors:  Zeinab Azamian; Farinaz Shirban
Journal:  Scientifica (Cairo)       Date:  2016-04-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.