OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the modified tandem traction bow appliance (MTTBA) and the facemask in treating patients with Class III malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consisted of the pre-post treatment\pre-post observation lateral cephalograms of 65 subjects with skeletal and dental Class III malocclusion. In the first group 21 patients (mean age: 10 years, 6 months) were treated with a Delaire-type facemask (FM). In the second group 22 patients treated (mean age: 10 years) with MTTBA. The remaining 22 children (mean age: 9 years, 7 months) were observed without treatment for 11 months. RESULTS: Increase in SNA, N-FH ⊥ A, and ANB angles were significantly greater in the treatment groups compared to the control group. However, ANB angle showed a significantly greater increase in the FM group (2.8 ± 0.30°) than in the MTTBA group (2.0 ± 0.18°). The overjet and molar relation increased significantly in both treatment groups, but in the FM group (5.2 ± 0.40 mm) increase in overjet was significantly greater than in the MTTBA group (4.0 ± 0.27 mm). Mesial movement of upper molar and incisor were found to be greater in the FM group compared to the modified TTBA group. CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances were found to be effective in the treatment of Class III malocclusion. Their skeletal and dental effects showed differences due to their design.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the modified tandem traction bow appliance (MTTBA) and the facemask in treating patients with Class III malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consisted of the pre-post treatment\pre-post observation lateral cephalograms of 65 subjects with skeletal and dental Class III malocclusion. In the first group 21 patients (mean age: 10 years, 6 months) were treated with a Delaire-type facemask (FM). In the second group 22 patients treated (mean age: 10 years) with MTTBA. The remaining 22 children (mean age: 9 years, 7 months) were observed without treatment for 11 months. RESULTS: Increase in SNA, N-FH ⊥ A, and ANB angles were significantly greater in the treatment groups compared to the control group. However, ANB angle showed a significantly greater increase in the FM group (2.8 ± 0.30°) than in the MTTBA group (2.0 ± 0.18°). The overjet and molar relation increased significantly in both treatment groups, but in the FM group (5.2 ± 0.40 mm) increase in overjet was significantly greater than in the MTTBA group (4.0 ± 0.27 mm). Mesial movement of upper molar and incisor were found to be greater in the FM group compared to the modified TTBA group. CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances were found to be effective in the treatment of Class III malocclusion. Their skeletal and dental effects showed differences due to their design.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class III malocclusion; Facemask; Tandem traction bow