Literature DB >> 28034574

Orthodontic camouflage versus orthognathic surgery for class III deformity: comparative cephalometric analysis.

P Martinez1, C Bellot-Arcís2, J M Llamas3, R Cibrian1, J L Gandia1, V Paredes-Gallardo1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare different cephalometric variables in adult patients with class III malocclusions before and after treatment, in order to determine which variables are indicative of orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery. The cases of 156 adult patients were assessed: 77 treated with orthodontic camouflage and 79 treated with orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. The following cephalometric variables were measured on pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) lateral cephalograms: sella-nasion-A-point (SNA), sella-nasion-B-point (SNB), and A-point-nasion-B-point (ANB) angles, Wits appraisal, facial axis angle, mandibular plane angle, upper and lower incisor inclination, and inter-incisal angle. There were statistically significant differences in cephalometric variables before and after treatment between the two groups. The percentage of normal pre-treatment measurements in the camouflage orthodontics group was 30.7%, which worsened slightly to 28.4% post-treatment. However in the group receiving surgery, this was 24.5% pre-treatment, improving to 33.5% after surgery. SNA, SNB, Wits appraisal, lower incisor inclination, and inter-incisal angle showed differences between the two groups before and after treatment. Wits appraisal, lower incisor inclination, and inter-incisal angle were indicative of one or other treatment. Upper and lower incisor decompensation in both groups did not reach ideal values, which impeded complete skeletal correction in 52% of surgical cases.
Copyright © 2016 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  class III; dental decompensation; orthodontic camouflage; orthognathic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28034574     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0901-5027            Impact factor:   2.789


  7 in total

1.  [Therapeutic effect analysis of skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion treatment by transmission straight wire technique].

Authors:  Feng Cheng; Zhi-Shan Jian; Ying Zhu; Chun-Yan Zhang; Li Hu; Li-Li Chen
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2020-06-01

2.  Treatment decision of camouflage or surgical orthodontic treatment for skeletal Class III patients based on analysis of masticatory function.

Authors:  Nobuhiko Kawai; Masahiko Watanabe; Manami Shibata; Shinya Horiuchi; Kenji Fushima; Eiji Tanaka
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 3.719

3.  Surgical Treatment of a Borderline Skeletal Class III Patient: an Interdisciplinary Approach.

Authors:  Farha Philippe; Sayegh Ghoussoub Mona
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2021-02

4.  Treatment decision in adult patients with class III malocclusion: surgery versus orthodontics.

Authors:  Sara Eslami; Jorge Faber; Ali Fateh; Farnaz Sheikholaemmeh; Vincenzo Grassia; Abdolreza Jamilian
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Effectiveness of Tongue Crib Combination Treating Severe Skeletal Angle Class III Malocclusion in Mixed Dentition.

Authors:  Wenting Zhao; Yan Chen; Hee-Moon Kyung; Jin-Shuai Xu
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2020 Nov-Dec

6.  Combined Orthodontic and Surgical Management for Treatment of Severe Class III Malocclusion with Anterior and Posterior Crossbites.

Authors:  Yahya A Alogaibi; Fahad F Alsulaimani; Basem Jamal; Rania Mitwally
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2021-06-25

7.  Comparison of soft tissue changes between incisor tipping and translation after premolar extraction.

Authors:  Wonkyeong Baik; Sung-Hwan Choi; Jung-Yul Cha; Hyung-Seog Yu; Kee-Joon Lee
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 1.372

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.