Literature DB >> 21055597

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

Hugo De Clerck1, Lucia Cevidanes, Tiziano Baccetti.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this cephalometric investigation, we analyzed the treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) with miniplates in the maxilla and mandible connected by Class III elastics in patients with Class III malocclusion.
METHODS: The treated sample consisted of 21 Class III patients consecutively treated with the BAMP protocol before the pubertal growth spurt (mean age, 11.10 ± 1.8 years) and reevaluated after BAMP therapy, about 1 year later. The treated group was compared with a matched control group of 18 untreated Class III subjects. Significant differences between the treated and control groups were assessed with independent-sample t tests (P <0.05).
RESULTS: Sagittal measurements of the maxilla showed highly significant improvements during active treatment (about 4 mm more than the untreated controls), with significant protraction effects at orbitale and pterygomaxillare. Significant improvements of overjet and molar relationship were recorded, as well as in the mandibular skeletal measures at Point B and pogonion. Vertical skeletal changes and modifications in incisor inclination were negligible, except for a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in the treated group. Significant soft-tissue changes reflected the underlying skeletal modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with growth of the untreated Class III subjects, the BAMP protocol induced an average increment on skeletal and soft-tissue advancement of maxillary structures of about 4 mm, and favorable mandibular changes exceeded 2 mm.
Copyright © 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21055597      PMCID: PMC3033914          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037

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


  10 in total

1.  Osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to facemask therapy: a case report.

Authors:  S L Singer; P J Henry; I Rosenberg
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.079

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

Authors:  T Baccetti; L Franchi; J A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Use of onplants as stable anchorage for facemask treatment: a case report.

Authors:  He Hong; Peter Ngan; Guangli Han; Han Guang Li; Liu Gong Qi; Stephen H Y Wei
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 4.  Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion. A systematic review.

Authors:  Laura De Toffol; Chiara Pavoni; Tiziano Baccetti; Lorenzo Franchi; Paola Cozza
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates.

Authors:  Gavin C Heymann; Lucia Cevidanes; Marie Cornelis; Hugo J De Clerck; J F Camilla Tulloch
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency.

Authors:  Hugo J De Clerck; Marie A Cornelis; Lucia H Cevidanes; Gavin C Heymann; Camilla J F Tulloch
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Head orientation in CBCT-generated cephalograms.

Authors:  Lucia Cevidanes; Ana E F Oliveira; Alexandre Motta; Ceib Phillips; Brandon Burke; Donald Tyndall
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Facemask therapy with rigid anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and severe oligodontia.

Authors:  Ayhan Enacar; Bahadir Giray; Muge Pehlivanoglu; Haldun Iplikcioglu
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results.

Authors:  Beyza Hancioglu Kircelli; Zafer Ozgür Pektas
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views.

Authors:  John B Ludlow; Maritzabel Gubler; Lucia Cevidanes; André Mol
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.650

  10 in total
  46 in total

1.  Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing Class III patients.

Authors:  T Baccetti; H J De Clerck; L H Cevidanes; L Franchi
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  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

3.  Orthopaedic protraction of the maxilla with miniplates: treatment of midface deficiency.

Authors:  Saikrishna Degala; M Bhanumathi; B M Shivalinga
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2013-10-01

4.  Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Authors:  Eman H Elabbassy; Noha E Sabet; Islam T Hassan; Dina H Elghoul; Marwa A Elkassaby
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  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

6.  Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored Class III intermaxillary traction.

Authors:  Hugo De Clerck; Tung Nguyen; Leonardo Koerich de Paula; Lucia Cevidanes
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  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

8.  Sagittal skeletal correction using symphyseal miniplate anchorage systems : Success rates and complications.

Authors:  Seçil Çubuk; Burçak Kaya; Zahire Şahinoğlu; Ufuk Ateş; Ayça Arman Özçırpıcı; Sina Uçkan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 1.938

9.  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

10.  Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sherif A Elkordy; Amr M Abouelezz; Mona M S Fayed; Mai H Aboulfotouh; Yehya A Mostafa
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.