Literature DB >> 34964848

Comparison of facemask therapy effects using skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage.

Hyeon-Jong Lee, Dong-Soon Choi, Insan Jang, Bong-Kuen Cha.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate long-term outcomes of dentoskeletal changes induced by facemask therapy using skeletal anchorage in Class III patients and compare them to those of conventional tooth-borne anchorage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 20 patients who received facemask (FM) therapy with miniplates as anchorage for maxillary protraction (Miniplate/FM group, 10.6 ± 1.1 years old [mean ± SD]) and 23 patients who were treated with facemask with rapid maxillary expander (RME/FM group, 10.0 ± 1.5 years old [mean ± SD]). Dentoskeletal changes were evaluated using lateral cephalograms at pretreatment (T1), after facemask therapy (T2), and at the post-pubertal stage (T3). Cephalometric changes were compared between groups and clinical success rates at T3 were evaluated.
RESULTS: SNA and A to N perpendicular to FH increased significantly more in the Miniplate/FM group than in the RME/FM group when comparing short-term effects of facemask therapy (T1-T2). ANB, Wits appraisal, Angle of convexity, mandibular plane angle, and overjet decreased significantly more in the RME/FM group than in the Miniplate/FM group after facemask therapy (T2-T3). A more favorable intermaxillary relationship was observed in the Miniplate/FM group than in the RME/FM group in long-term observations (T1-T3). Clinical success rate at T3 was 95% in the Miniplate/FM group and 85% in the RME/FM group.
CONCLUSIONS: Facemask therapy with skeletal anchorage showed a greater advancement of the maxilla and more favorable stability for correction of Class III malocclusion in the long-term than conventional facemask therapy with tooth-borne anchorage.
© 2022 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Class III malocclusion; Facemask; Miniplate; Rapid maxillary expander; Skeletal anchorage

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34964848      PMCID: PMC9020399          DOI: 10.2319/032121-219.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  18 in total

1.  Skeletal changes in vertical and anterior displacement of the maxilla with bonded rapid palatal expansion appliances.

Authors:  D M Sarver; M W Johnston
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Effects of protraction mechanics on the midface.

Authors:  V Pangrazio-Kulbersh; J Berger; G Kersten
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion.

Authors:  Lucia Cevidanes; Tiziano Baccetti; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara; Hugo De Clerck
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient.

Authors:  Bong-Kuen Cha; Dong-Soon Choi; Peter Ngan; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Soung-Min Kim; In-San Jang
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  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

6.  Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results.

Authors:  Beyza Hancioglu Kircelli; Zafer Ozgür Pektas
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment.

Authors:  P Ngan; U Hägg; C Yiu; D Merwin; S H Wei
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Long-term stability of rapid maxillary expansion combined with chincup protraction followed by fixed appliances.

Authors:  Juan Carlos Palma; Natalia Tejedor-Sanz; M Dolores Oteo; José Antonio Alarcón
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction.

Authors:  Claudia Toyama Hino; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Tung T Nguyen; Hugo J De Clerck; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment.

Authors:  Peter Ngan; Benedict Wilmes; Dieter Drescher; Chris Martin; Bryan Weaver; Erdogan Gunel
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.