Literature DB >> 22748987

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

Hugo De Clerck1, Tung Nguyen, Leonardo Koerich de Paula, Lucia Cevidanes.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Conventional treatment for young Class III patients involves extraoral devices designed to either protract the maxilla or restrain mandibular growth. The use of skeletal anchorage offers a promising alternative to obtain orthopedic results with fewer dental compensations. Our aim was to evaluate 3-dimensional changes in the mandibles and the glenoid fossae of Class III patients treated with bone-anchored maxillary protraction.
METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive skeletal Class III patients between the ages of 9 and 13 years (mean age, 11.10 ± 1.1 year) were treated with Class III intermaxillary elastics and bilateral miniplates (2 in the infrazygomatic crests of the maxilla and 2 in the anterior mandible). The patients had cone-beam computed tomography images taken before initial loading and at the end of active treatment. Three-dimensional models were generated from these images, registered on the anterior cranial base, and analyzed by using color maps.
RESULTS: Posterior displacement of the mandible at the end of treatment was observed in all subjects (posterior ramus: mean, 2.74 ± 1.36 mm; condyles: mean, 2.07 ± 1.16 mm; chin: mean, -0.13 ± 2.89 mm). Remodeling of the glenoid fossa at the anterior eminence (mean, 1.38 ± 1.03 mm) and bone resorption at the posterior wall (mean, -1.34 ± 0.6 mm) were observed in most patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This new treatment approach offers a promising alternative to restrain mandibular growth for Class III patients with a component of mandibular prognathism or to compensate for maxillary deficiency in patients with hypoplasia of the midface. Future studies with long-term follow-up and comparisons with facemask and chincup therapies are needed to better understand the treatment effects.
Copyright © 2012 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22748987      PMCID: PMC3553657          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.01.017

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


  23 in total

1.  An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth.

Authors:  Tiziano Baccetti; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children.

Authors:  H S Baik
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Effects of protraction mechanics on the midface.

Authors:  V Pangrazio-Kulbersh; J Berger; G Kersten
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Changes following the use of protraction headgear for early correction of Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  Y H Chong; J C Ive; J Artun
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Morphologic adaptation of temporomandibular joint after chincup therapy.

Authors:  H Mimura; T Deguchi
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Dentofacial changes produced by extraoral posterior force on the mandible of Macaca irus.

Authors:  S Kanematsu
Journal:  Nihon Kyosei Shika Gakkai Zasshi       Date:  1988-03

7.  The cephalometric, anatomic, and histologic changes in Macaca mulatta after application of a continuous-acting retraction force on the mandible.

Authors:  E K Janzen; J A Bluher
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1965-11

8.  Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years.

Authors:  A Björk; V Skieller
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Three-dimensional assessment of maxillary changes associated with bone anchored maxillary protraction.

Authors:  Tung Nguyen; Lucia Cevidanes; Marie A Cornelis; Gavin Heymann; Leonardo K de Paula; Hugo De Clerck
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex.

Authors:  S Hata; T Itoh; M Nakagawa; K Kamogashira; K Ichikawa; M Matsumoto; S J Chaconas
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  22 in total

1.  Fast three-dimensional superimposition of cone beam computed tomography for orthopaedics and orthognathic surgery evaluation.

Authors:  A Weissheimer; L M Menezes; L Koerich; J Pham; L H S Cevidanes
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.789

2.  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

3.  Bone-anchored maxillary protraction long-term outcomes in UCLP.

Authors:  Daniela Garib; Fernando Pugliese; Renata Mayumi Kato; Renato Faco; Marilia Yatabe; Hilde Timmerman; Hugo De Clerck
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  An interview with Peter H. Buschang.

Authors:  Peter H Buschang; Ary dos Santos-Pinto; Eustáquio Araújo; Gerson Luiz Ulema Ribeiro; Helder Baldi Jacob; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2014-12-01

5.  Use of shape correspondence analysis to quantify skeletal changes associated with bone-anchored Class III correction.

Authors:  Tung Nguyen; Lucia Cevidanes; Beatriz Paniagua; Hongtu Zhu; Leonardo Koerich; Hugo De Clerck
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: A single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Masahiro Seiryu; Hiroto Ida; Atsushi Mayama; Satoshi Sasaki; Shutaro Sasaki; Toru Deguchi; Teruko Takano-Yamamoto
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  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

8.  Common 3-dimensional coordinate system for assessment of directional changes.

Authors:  Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Cristiano Tonello; Liliane Rosas Gomes; Marilia Sayako Yatabe; Lucie Macron; Julia Lopinto; Joao Roberto Goncalves; Daniela Gamba Garib Carreira; Nivaldo Alonso; Bernardo Quiroga Souki; Raildo da Silva Coqueiro; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Comparison of short-term effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia.

Authors:  Cahide Ağlarcı; Elçin Esenlik; Yavuz Fındık
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Comparison and reproducibility of 2 regions of reference for maxillary regional registration with cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni; Marcelo Regis Gomes; Carlotta Danesi; Roberta Lione; Tung Nguyen; James A McNamara; Paola Cozza; Lorenzo Franchi; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.650

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.