Literature DB >> 34094844

Sutural deformation during bone-anchored maxillary protraction.

Taylor Rae Vracar1, Wanda Claro1, Michael Eli Vracar2, Randall Stetson Jenkins1, Lane Bland1, Ayman Al Dayeh1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) is an emerging treatment option for orthopedic correction of maxillary deficiency in young patients. Compared to reverse pull headgear (RPHG), it is believed that forces generated during BAMP result in greater circum-maxillary sutural separation, mandibular retrusion, and improved maxillary protraction. Mechanical loading of the circum-maxillary sutures during BAMP is still poorly understood.
METHODS: 20 ex-vivo pig heads were used. Miniplates and molar tubes were installed like clinical procedures. A series of five 200 ​g-force (gf) elastics were applied on the right and left side until 1000gf were reached. Strain gauges were installed across the zygomatico-maxillary (ZMS), zygomatico-temporal (ZTS), and nasofrontal suture (NFS). Differential variable reluctance transducers (DVRTs) were installed across the ZTS. Deformation of the sutures during BAMP and RPHG was measured and compared.
RESULTS: Higher average sutural deformation of the ZTS and ZMS was seen in BAMP than RPHG: 36.6 ​± ​20.6με vs 18.0 ​± ​12.4με and 54.7 ​± ​28.5με vs 12.5 ​± ​14.8με, respectively. Similarly, higher NFS deformation was seen in BAMP (18.4 ​± ​12.9με vs. -0.8 ​± ​12.0με). DVRT data showed higher ZTS separation in BAMP than RPHG (6.3 ​± ​5.2 ​μm vs. 1.7 ​± ​2.1 ​μm). These differences were all statistically significant using the Wilcoxon-signed rank test.
CONCLUSION: Both RPHG and BAMP forces separate the ZTS and ZMS. BAMP resulted in higher levels of sutural separation at the ZTS and ZMS by 2- and 5-fold, respectively.
© 2021 Craniofacial Research Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone-anchored maxillary protraction; Class III; Maxillary deficiency; Maxillary protraction; Reverse-pull headgear

Year:  2021        PMID: 34094844      PMCID: PMC8167158          DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2021.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res        ISSN: 2212-4268


  25 in total

1.  Alloplastic facial contouring by zonal principles of skeletal anatomy.

Authors:  E O Terino
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 2.017

2.  Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy.

Authors:  T Baccetti; J S McGill; L Franchi; J A McNamara; I Tollaro
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Zygomaticomaxillary suture maturation: Part II-The influence of sutural maturation on the response to maxillary protraction.

Authors:  F Angelieri; A C Ruellas; M S Yatabe; L H S Cevidanes; L Franchi; C Toyama-Hino; H J De Clerck; T Nguyen; J A McNamara
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.826

4.  Nonsurgical miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion results in acceptable stability in young adults.

Authors:  Sung-Hwan Choi; Kyung-Keun Shi; Jung-Yul Cha; Young-Chel Park; Kee-Joon Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys.

Authors:  W M Smalley; P A Shapiro; T H Hohl; V G Kokich; P I Brånemark
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Dentofacial changes produced by extraoral forward force in the Macaca irus.

Authors:  T Kambara
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1977-03

7.  Long-term follow-up of early treatment with reverse headgear.

Authors:  Urban Hägg; Agnes Tse; Margareta Bendeus; A Bakr M Rabie
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Biomechanical and clinical considerations of a modified protraction headgear.

Authors:  R Nanda
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1980-08

9.  Treatment effect of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing patients compared to controls: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marie A Cornelis; Michele Tepedino; Neel de Vos Riis; Xiaowen Niu; Paolo M Cattaneo
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Orthopedic and Nonsurgical Orthodontic Treatment of Adolescent Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Using Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction and Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Case Report.

Authors:  Mohammed Alnefaie; Woo-Jin Han; Yoon-Soo Ahn; Won-Kyeong Baik; Sung-Hwan Choi
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-07
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.