OBJECTIVES: To investigate the hypothesis that there is difference in the treatment outcomes of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into two groups. In one group, the patients were treated with facemask therapy (FMgroup: 12 males, eight females, average age: 10 years, 5 months ± 1 year, 8 months). In the other group, patients were treated with facemask therapy along with a miniscrew (FM+MSgroup: 12 males, seven females, average age: 11 years, 1 month ± 1 year, 3 months). A lingual arch with hooks was fixed to the maxillary arch in both groups and a protractive force of 500 g was applied from the facemask to the hooks. The patients were instructed to use the facemask for 12 hours per day. In the FM+MS group, a miniscrew was inserted into the palate and fixed to the lingual arch. RESULTS:Mobility and loosening of the miniscrew were not observed during treatment. Lateral cephalometric analysis showed that SNA, SN-ANS, and ANB values were significantly increased in the FM+MS group compared with those for the FM group (SNA, 1.1° SN-ANS, 1.3° ANB, 0.8°). Increase in proclination of maxillary incisors was significantly greater in the FM group than in the FM+MS group (U1-SN, 5.0°). CONCLUSIONS: During treatment of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion, facemask therapy along with a miniscrew exhibits fewer negative side effects and delivers orthopedic forces more efficiently to the maxillary complex than facemask therapy alone.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the hypothesis that there is difference in the treatment outcomes of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients were randomly divided into two groups. In one group, the patients were treated with facemask therapy (FM group: 12 males, eight females, average age: 10 years, 5 months ± 1 year, 8 months). In the other group, patients were treated with facemask therapy along with a miniscrew (FM+MS group: 12 males, seven females, average age: 11 years, 1 month ± 1 year, 3 months). A lingual arch with hooks was fixed to the maxillary arch in both groups and a protractive force of 500 g was applied from the facemask to the hooks. The patients were instructed to use the facemask for 12 hours per day. In the FM+MS group, a miniscrew was inserted into the palate and fixed to the lingual arch. RESULTS: Mobility and loosening of the miniscrew were not observed during treatment. Lateral cephalometric analysis showed that SNA, SN-ANS, and ANB values were significantly increased in the FM+MS group compared with those for the FM group (SNA, 1.1° SN-ANS, 1.3° ANB, 0.8°). Increase in proclination of maxillary incisors was significantly greater in the FM group than in the FM+MS group (U1-SN, 5.0°). CONCLUSIONS: During treatment of milder skeletal Class III malocclusion, facemask therapy along with a miniscrew exhibits fewer negative side effects and delivers orthopedic forces more efficiently to the maxillary complex than facemask therapy alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
Absolute anchorage; Class III malocclusion; Facemask therapy; Maxillary protraction; Miniscrew
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