Literature DB >> 22984102

Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 3-year follow-up.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of early class III protraction facemask treatment in children under 10 years of age at 3-year follow-up.
DESIGN: Multicentre randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes were assessed 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 oral aesthetic subjective impact score (OASIS) questionnaire. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) signs and symptoms were also recorded. The time points for data collection were at registration (DC1), 15 months later (DC2) and 3 years post-registration (DC3).
RESULTS: The following mean skeletal and occlusal changes occurred from the class III starting point to DC3 (3-year follow-up): SNA, PFG moved forwards +2·3° (CG forward +1·6°; P = 0·14); SNB, PFG moved forwards +0·8° (CG forward +1·5°, P = 0·26); ANB, PFG class III base improved +1·5° (CG stayed about the same at +0·1°; P = 0·001). This contributed to an overall difference in ANB between PFG and CG of +1·4° in favour of early protraction facemask treatment. The overjet was still improved by +3·6 mm in the PFG and changed a small amount +1·1 mm in the CG (P = 0·001). A 21% improvement in PAR was shown in the PFG and the CG worsened by 8·4% (P = 0·02). There was no increase in self-esteem (Piers-Harris score) for PFG compared with the CG (P = 0·56) and no statistically significant difference in the impact of malocclusion (OASIS) between groups in terms of the changes from DC1 to DC3 (P = 0·18). TMJ signs and symptoms were very low at DC1 and DC3.
CONCLUSIONS: The favourable effect of early class III protraction facemask treatment undertaken in patients under 10 years of age, is maintained at 3-year follow-up in terms of ANB, overjet and % PAR improvement. The direct protraction treatment effect at SNA is still favourable although not statistically significantly better than the CG. Seventy per cent of patients in PFG had maintained a positive overjet which we have defined as ongoing treatment success. Early protraction facemask treatment does not seem to influence self-esteem or reduce the patient's personal impact of their malocclusion at 3-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22984102     DOI: 10.1179/1465312512Z.00000000028

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  The developing occlusion of children and young people in general practice: when to watch and when to refer.

Authors:  J K Scott; N E Atack
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yifan Lin; Runzhi Guo; Liyu Hou; Zhen Fu; Weiran Li
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Early treatment of class III malocclusion with facemask.

Authors:  Robert S D Smyth; Fiona S Ryan
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2017-12-22

4.  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

5.  Severe Angle Class III skeletal malocclusion associated to mandibular prognathism: orthodontic-surgical treatment.

Authors:  Marcelo Quiroga Souki
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

6.  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 7.  Effect of protraction facemask on the temporomandibular joint: a systematic review.

Authors:  Xinqi Huang; Xiao Cen; Jun Liu
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 8.  Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Edlira Zere; Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari; Jitendra Sharan; Kunaal Dhingra; Nitesh Tiwari
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2018-06-22

9.  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

10.  Early Class III treatment with Hybrid-Hyrax - Facemask in comparison to Hybrid-Hyrax-Mentoplate - skeletal and dental outcomes.

Authors:  Jan H Willmann; Manuel Nienkemper; Nour Eldin Tarraf; Benedict Wilmes; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.