Literature DB >> 20805344

Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up.

Nicky Mandall1, Andrew DiBiase, Simon Littlewood, Spencer Nute, Nadia Stivaros, Ross McDowall, Inderjit Shargill, Helen Worthington, Richard Cousley, Fiona Dyer, Rye Mattick, Barbara Doherty.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of early class III protraction facemask treatment in children under 10 years of age.
DESIGN: Multicentre, randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Eight UK hospital orthodontic units. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into an early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes from lateral cephalograms and occlusal changes using the peer assessment rating (PAR). Self-esteem was assessed using the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale, and the psychosocial impact of malocclusion with an oral aesthetic subjective impact scores (OASIS) questionnaire. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) signs and symptoms were also recorded. The time points for data collection were at registration (DC1) and 15 months later (DC2).
RESULTS: The following mean skeletal and occlusal changes occurred from the class III starting point: SNA, PFG moved forwards 1.4 degrees (CG forward 0.3 degrees; P = 0.018); SNB, PFG moved backwards -0.7 degrees (CG forward 0.8 degrees; P<0.001); ANB, PFG class III base improved +2.1 degrees (CG worsened by -0.5 degrees; P<0.001). This contributed to an overall difference in ANB between PFG and CG of 2.6 degrees in favour of early protraction facemask treatment. The overjet improved +4.4 mm in the PFG and marginally changed +0.3 mm in the CG (P<0.001). A 32.2% improvement in PAR was shown in the PFG and the CG worsened by 8.6%. There was no increased self-esteem (Piers-Harris score) for treated children compared with controls (P = 0.22). However, there was a reduced impact of malocclusion (OASIS score) for the PFG compared with the CG (P = 0.003), suggesting treatment resulted in slightly less concern about the tooth appearance. TMJ signs and symptoms were very low at DC1 and DC2 and none were reported during active facemask treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Early class III orthopaedic treatment, with protraction facemask, in patients under 10 years of age, is skeletally and dentally effective in the short term and does not result in TMJ dysfunction. Seventy per cent of patients had successful treatment, defined as achieving a positive overjet. However, early treatment does not seem to confer a clinically significant psychosocial benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20805344     DOI: 10.1179/14653121043056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthod        ISSN: 1465-3125


  18 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Moritz Foersch; Collin Jacobs; Susanne Wriedt; Marlene Hechtner; Heinrich Wehrbein
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  J Seehra; P S Fleming; N Mandall; A T Dibiase
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Do we get better outcomes from early treatment of Class III discrepancies?

Authors:  Andrew T DiBiase; Jadbinder Seehra; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 2.727

4.  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

5.  Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Hyo-Won Ahn; Keun-Woo Kim; Il-Hyung Yang; Jin-Young Choi; Seung-Hak Baek
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 6.  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

7.  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

8.  A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients.

Authors:  Saad A Al-Mozany; Oyku Dalci; Mohammed Almuzian; Carmen Gonzalez; Nour E Tarraf; M Ali Darendeliler
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.750

Review 9.  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

10.  Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Nicky Mandall; Richard Cousley; Andrew DiBiase; Fiona Dyer; Simon Littlewood; Rye Mattick; Spencer J Nute; Barbara Doherty; Nadia Stivaros; Ross McDowall; Inderjit Shargill; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2016-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.