Literature DB >> 27871701

Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols.

Mohammed H Elnagar1, Eman Elshourbagy2, Safaa Ghobashy2, Mohamed Khedr3, Carla A Evans4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 protocols of bone-anchored maxillary protraction with an untreated control group.
METHODS: Thirty growing Class III subjects with maxillary deficiency in the late mixed or early permanent dentition were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 10), skeletally anchored facemasks were used with miniplates placed at the zygomatic buttress. In group 2 (n = 10), the patients were treated with Class III elastics extending from infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to symphyseal miniplates in the mandible. Group 3 (n = 10) was an untreated control group. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed.
RESULTS: The treatment periods were 8 and 8.9 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and the untreated control group was observed for 9.4 months. The maxilla moved forward significantly in groups 1 and 2 compared with the untreated control group (4.87 mm in group 1, 5.81 mm in group 2); overjet and maxillary incisor display were improved without proclination or mesialization of the maxillary teeth relative to the maxillary base. Soft tissue harmony demonstrated the great improvement. However, group 1 showed more opening rotation of the mandible and lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than did group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 skeletal anchorage protocols for maxillary protraction effectively resolved the severe maxillary deficiently in growing Class III patients. However, vertical changes and retroclination of the mandibular incisors were better controlled by Class III elastics extending from the infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to the symphyseal miniplates in the mandible (group 2).
Copyright © 2016 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27871701     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.025

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


  8 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Collaboration in orthodontic clinical trials: prevalence and association with sample size and funding.

Authors:  D Al-Moghrabi; A Tsichlaki; N Pandis; P S Fleming
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 2.750

4.  Long-term maxillary three dimensional changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei-Cheng Lee; Yi-Shing Shieh; Yu-Fang Liao; Cho-Hao Lee; Chiung Shing Huang
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 2.080

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.  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

7.  Displacement and stress distribution of the maxillofacial complex during maxillary protraction using palatal plates: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jusuk Eom; Mohamed Bayome; Jae Hyun Park; Hee Jin Lim; Yoon-Ah Kook; Seong Ho Han
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion: A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Authors:  Wei-Cheng Lee; Yi-Shing Shieh; Yu-Fang Liao; Cho-Hao Lee; Chiung Shing Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.