Hsiang-Chien Lin1, Hong-Po Chang, Hsin-Fu Chang. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Taipei Medical University Hospital and School of Dentistry, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Little information related to the treatment effects of the occipitomental anchorage (OMA) appliance of maxillary (Mx) protraction combined with chincup traction is available. The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment effects of the OMA orthopedic appliance on patients with Class III malocclusion. METHODS: Pretreatment and post-treatment cephalometric records of 20 consecutively treated patients with Class III malocclusions were evaluated and compared with a matched sample of untreated Class III control subjects. RESULTS: The OMA appliance is effective for correcting skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing children. The treatment effects of this orthopedic appliance were considered to be from both skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. The skeletal effects were mainly obtained by stimulating forward growth of the Mx complex with negligible rotation of the Mx plane and restraining forward advancement of the mandible (Mn) with backward and downward rotation of the Mn plane. The observed dentoalveolar effects were mostly due to the labial tipping movement of the Mx incisors. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the OMA orthopedic appliance can correct the mesial jaw relationship and negative incisal over jet. This appliance is effective for correcting skeletal Class III malocclusion with both midface deficiency and Mn prognathism in growing children.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Little information related to the treatment effects of the occipitomental anchorage (OMA) appliance of maxillary (Mx) protraction combined with chincup traction is available. The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment effects of the OMA orthopedic appliance on patients with Class III malocclusion. METHODS: Pretreatment and post-treatment cephalometric records of 20 consecutively treated patients with Class III malocclusions were evaluated and compared with a matched sample of untreated Class III control subjects. RESULTS: The OMA appliance is effective for correcting skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing children. The treatment effects of this orthopedic appliance were considered to be from both skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. The skeletal effects were mainly obtained by stimulating forward growth of the Mx complex with negligible rotation of the Mx plane and restraining forward advancement of the mandible (Mn) with backward and downward rotation of the Mn plane. The observed dentoalveolar effects were mostly due to the labial tipping movement of the Mx incisors. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the OMA orthopedic appliance can correct the mesial jaw relationship and negative incisal over jet. This appliance is effective for correcting skeletal Class III malocclusion with both midface deficiency and Mn prognathism in growing children.