AIM: To cephalometrically compare the skeletal vertical and sagittal effects of TSME with those of RME protraction facemask therapy in Class III patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample of this retrospective study included 104 patients (53 females, 51 males) with age ranging from 5 to 9 years, presenting a skeletal Class III relationship: 52 were treated with transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) appliance (Group 1) and 52 with Hyrax rapid maxillary expander/facemask (RME/FM, Group 2). For each patient a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period (T1). Changes in the two groups during the observation period were calculated, compared and statistically analysed with t-test. RESULTS: TSME can produce skeletal changes and dento-alveolar modifications. RME in association with protraction facemask showed that after treatment the maxilla was moved significantly forward. The correction of the ANB angle was due to a change in mandibular position during treatment which showed a backward and downward rotation. CONCLUSION: Both devices were effective in the treatment of subjects with skeletal Class III due to maxillary retrusion.
AIM: To cephalometrically compare the skeletal vertical and sagittal effects of TSME with those of RME protraction facemask therapy in Class III patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample of this retrospective study included 104 patients (53 females, 51 males) with age ranging from 5 to 9 years, presenting a skeletal Class III relationship: 52 were treated with transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) appliance (Group 1) and 52 with Hyrax rapid maxillary expander/facemask (RME/FM, Group 2). For each patient a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period (T1). Changes in the two groups during the observation period were calculated, compared and statistically analysed with t-test. RESULTS: TSME can produce skeletal changes and dento-alveolar modifications. RME in association with protraction facemask showed that after treatment the maxilla was moved significantly forward. The correction of the ANB angle was due to a change in mandibular position during treatment which showed a backward and downward rotation. CONCLUSION: Both devices were effective in the treatment of subjects with skeletal Class III due to maxillary retrusion.