Seçil Çubuk1, Burçak Kaya2, Zahire Şahinoğlu2, Ufuk Ateş3, Ayça Arman Özçırpıcı2, Sina Uçkan4. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey. secilcubuk@baskent.edu.tr. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Private Practice, Girne, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study is to evaluate success rates and complications related with symphyseal miniplate anchorage systems used for treatment of Class 2 and Class 3 deformities. METHODS: A total of 58 miniplates applied to 29 growing patients were evaluated. The first group comprised 24 symphyseal miniplates applied to 12 patients and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices were attached to the head of the miniplates for mandibular advancement. The second group consisted of 34 symphyseal miniplates applied to 17 patients and intermaxillary elastics were applied between acrylic appliances placed on the maxillary dental arch and the symphyseal miniplates for maxillary protraction. Success rate and complications of the symphyseal plate-screw anchorage system were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall success rate of symphseal miniplates was 87.9%. Six miniplates showed severe mobility and 2 miniplates broke during orthodontic treatment. Infection, miniplate mobility and mucosal hypertrophy were statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Symphyseal miniplates were generally used as successful anchorage units in most patients. Infection, mobility, and mucosal hypertrophy occurred more frequently in Class 2 deformity correction. However, the success rates regarding the two treatment modalities were comparable.
OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study is to evaluate success rates and complications related with symphyseal miniplate anchorage systems used for treatment of Class 2 and Class 3 deformities. METHODS: A total of 58 miniplates applied to 29 growing patients were evaluated. The first group comprised 24 symphyseal miniplates applied to 12 patients and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices were attached to the head of the miniplates for mandibular advancement. The second group consisted of 34 symphyseal miniplates applied to 17 patients and intermaxillary elastics were applied between acrylic appliances placed on the maxillary dental arch and the symphyseal miniplates for maxillary protraction. Success rate and complications of the symphyseal plate-screw anchorage system were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall success rate of symphseal miniplates was 87.9%. Six miniplates showed severe mobility and 2 miniplates broke during orthodontic treatment. Infection, miniplate mobility and mucosal hypertrophy were statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Symphyseal miniplates were generally used as successful anchorage units in most patients. Infection, mobility, and mucosal hypertrophy occurred more frequently in Class 2 deformity correction. However, the success rates regarding the two treatment modalities were comparable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II and III malocclusion; Forsus fatigue resistant device; Skeletal orthodontic anchorage; Success rate; Symphyseal miniplate
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
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
Authors: Marie A Cornelis; Nicole R Scheffler; Pierre Mahy; Sergio Siciliano; Hugo J De Clerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Marie A Cornelis; Nicole R Scheffler; Catherine Nyssen-Behets; Hugo J De Clerck; J F Camilla Tulloch Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.650