Brittany Fischer1, Caterina Masucci2,3, Antonio Ruellas4,5, Lucia Cevidanes5, Veronica Giuntini3, Michele Nieri3, Cosimo Nardi6, Lorenzo Franchi3,7, James A McNamara5,8,9, Efisio Defraia3. 1. Private Practice Orthodontist, San Diego, California. 2. Sous-section Orthopédie Dento-Faciale, Faculté de Chirurgie dentaire, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France. 3. Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Orthodontics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 4. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry School of Dentistry, University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 5. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 7. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 9. Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the three-dimensional maxillary dentoskeletal effects of a modified alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction facemask protocol (Alt-RAMEC/FM) with the traditional rapid maxillary expansion facemask protocol (RME/FM) performed in deciduous or early mixed dentition Class III patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Orthodontic Clinic of the Section of Dentistry of the Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine of the University of Florence. Thirty-four Class III patients were enrolled and allocated by alternating assignment to either Alt-RAMEC/FM or RME/FM therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prior to treatment, all patients were evaluated, and a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was acquired. After completion of the orthopaedic therapy (average interval 1.2 years), a follow-up CBCT scan was obtained. Anatomic landmark identification on the CBCTs and subsequent quantification of the changes were performed. The primary outcome variable was the anteroposterior displacement of the anterior nasal spine (ANS AP). The treatment groups were compared with independent samples t tests. RESULTS: The patients in the two treatment groups showed a similar degree of compliance. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any variable when comparing the Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM groups. In particular, the between-group difference for ANS AP was 0.0 mm (95%CI: -0.6;0.7, P = 0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Both Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM produced favourable orthopaedic changes in Class III growing patients. Neither protocol was superior to the other in terms of maxillary protraction effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the three-dimensional maxillary dentoskeletal effects of a modified alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction facemask protocol (Alt-RAMEC/FM) with the traditional rapid maxillary expansion facemask protocol (RME/FM) performed in deciduous or early mixed dentition Class III patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Orthodontic Clinic of the Section of Dentistry of the Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine of the University of Florence. Thirty-four Class III patients were enrolled and allocated by alternating assignment to either Alt-RAMEC/FM or RME/FM therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prior to treatment, all patients were evaluated, and a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was acquired. After completion of the orthopaedic therapy (average interval 1.2 years), a follow-up CBCT scan was obtained. Anatomic landmark identification on the CBCTs and subsequent quantification of the changes were performed. The primary outcome variable was the anteroposterior displacement of the anterior nasal spine (ANS AP). The treatment groups were compared with independent samples t tests. RESULTS: The patients in the two treatment groups showed a similar degree of compliance. No statistically significant differences were recorded for any variable when comparing the Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM groups. In particular, the between-group difference for ANS AP was 0.0 mm (95%CI: -0.6;0.7, P = 0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Both Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM produced favourable orthopaedic changes in Class III growing patients. Neither protocol was superior to the other in terms of maxillary protraction effectiveness.
Authors: Craig McMullen; Najla N Al Turkestani; Antonio C O Ruellas; Camila Massaro; Marcus V N N Rego; Marilia S Yatabe; Hera Kim-Berman; James A McNamara; Fernanda Angelieri; Lorenzo Franchi; Peter Ngan; Hong He; Lucia H S Cevidanes Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 2.711