Literature DB >> 26219549

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

Cahide Ağlarcı1, Elçin Esenlik2, Yavuz Fındık3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term dental and skeletal effects of a face mask (FM) with those of skeletal anchorage (SA) therapy with intermaxillary elastics in prepubertal patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion.
METHODS: Fifty patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency were divided into two groups. In the FM group, an FM was applied by a bite plate with a force of 400g for each side. In the SA group, mini-plates were placed between mandibular lateral incisors and canines, and mini-implants were inserted between maxillary second premolars and first molars. A bite plate was inserted into the upper arch, and Class III elastics were applied with a force of 200g between each mini-plate and mini-implant.
RESULTS: Mean treatment durations were 0.52±0.09 years for FM and 0.76±0.09 years for SA. After the treatment, statistically significant increases in SNA°, ANB°, A-y, 1-NA, SnGoGn°, Co-A, Co-Gn, and A-Nperp, and reductions in SNB° and FH┴N-Pg were observed in both groups, and these changes were similar in both groups. In the FM group, 1-NB decreased significantly, and in the SA group, it increased significantly (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The undesired dentoalveolar effects of the FM treatment were eliminated with SA treatment, except with regard to lower incisor inclination. Favourable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by SA therapies, which could be an alternative to the extraoral appliances frequently applied to treat skeletal Class III patients with maxillary deficiency.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26219549      PMCID: PMC4914908          DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  56 in total

1.  Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion.

Authors:  H S Park; S M Bae; H M Kyung; J H Sung
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2001-07

2.  Effect of Class III bone anchor treatment on airway.

Authors:  Tung Nguyen; Hugo De Clerck; Michael Wilson; Brent Golden
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  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

4.  Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.

Authors:  Cağla Sar; Ayça Arman-Özçırpıcı; Sina Uçkan; A Canan Yazıcı
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliances.

Authors:  Lorenzo Franchi; Tiziano Baccetti; James A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  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

7.  "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch.

Authors:  Paola Maria Poggio; Cristina Incorvati; Stefano Velo; Aldo Carano
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Root and bone response to the proximity of a mini-implant under orthodontic loading.

Authors:  Yang-Ku Lee; Jong-Wan Kim; Seung-Hak Baek; Tae-Woo Kim; Young-Il Chang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review.

Authors:  Apoorva Kamath; Shetty Suhani Sudhakar; Greeshma Kannan; Kripal Rai; Athul Sb
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2022-05-04

Review 2.  A Scoping Review about the Characteristics and Success-Failure Rates of Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Daniel Jaramillo-Bedoya; Gustavo Villegas-Giraldo; Andrés A Agudelo-Suárez; Diana Milena Ramírez-Ossa
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  [Meta-analysis of the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents].

Authors:  Hui Shi; Hong-Shan Ge; Lu-Yi Chen; Zhi-Hua Li
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2020-02-01

4.  Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Ricardo Alves de Souza; José Rino Neto; João Batista de Paiva
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiangwei Wang; Yingying Yang; Yingxue Wang; Lu Zhang; Wei Ji; Zheng Hong; Linkun Zhang
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 1.361

6.  Implications of pretreatment incisor inclinations for the achievement of cephalometric normal values-a study on two patient collectives.

Authors:  B Zimmer; H Sino; S Schenk-Kazan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 1.938

7.  Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hisham Mohammed; Khaled Wafaie; Mumen Z Rizk; Mohammed Almuzian; Rami Sosly; David R Bearn
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.750

Review 8.  Class III Treatment with Skeletal and Dental Anchorage: A Review of Comparative Effects.

Authors:  Roberta Clemente; Luca Contardo; Christian Greco; Roberto Di Lenarda; Giuseppe Perinetti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Maxillary protraction using customized mini-plates for anchorage in an adolescent girl with skeletal Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  Shuran Liang; Xianju Xie; Fan Wang; Qiao Chang; Hongmei Wang; Yuxing Bai
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 1.372

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.