Literature DB >> 8540481

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

P Ngan1, U Hägg, C Yiu, D Merwin, S H Wei.   

Abstract

One of the goals of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear is to significantly improve the dentofacial profile. The objectives of the present study were to determine (1) the interrelationships of the soft tissue and dentoskeletal profiles after maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment and (2) which cephalometric variables could contribute to an accurate prediction of the protraction effect on the soft tissue profile. Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 20 consecutively treated Class III patients (10 males, 10 females) by protraction headgear were included in this study. Their ages at the start of protraction headgear treatment ranged from 6 to 11 years, with an average of 8.1 +/- 2.1 years. None of the patients had previous orthodontic treatment. For each patient, the first lateral cephalogram was taken 6 months before the initiation of headgear treatment (T0), and the second radiograph at the start of treatment (T1). Therefore (T1-T0) represented 6 months of growth with no treatment. A third radiograph was taken 6 months after start of treatment (T2). In this way, (T2-T1)-(T1-T0) represented the effect the result of appliance therapy alone and each subject served as his/her own control. A computerized cephalometric analysis was used including variables assessing sagittal and vertical relationships of skeletal and soft tissue profiles, incisal relationships, soft tissue thickness, and lip structure. Data were analyzed by means of paired t tests, Pearson's product-moment coefficient correlation, and multiple regression analyses. The results showed significant improvements in dentofacial profile after 6 months of maxillary protraction. The skeletal and soft tissue facial profiles were straightened and the posture of the lips was improved. The normal incisal relationship (overjet) that was achieved had a significant impact on the soft tissues overlying both upper and lower incisors resulting in better lip competence and posture. Significant correlations were found between changes in the sagittal relationships of skeletal and soft tissue profiles in both the maxilla and the mandible (p < 0.05). The forward movement of the maxilla was accompanied by a corresponding forward movement of the soft tissue profile at 50% to 79% of the hard tissue. In the mandible, the downward and backward movements of the soft tissues were equivalent to 71% to 81% of the corresponding hard tissues. The lack of high r square values in the multiple regression analyses reflected a low prediction value for the maxillary variables, but moderately high prediction value for the mandibular variables that could be used in preorthopedic treatment planning. This study showed that significant dentoskeletal changes and improvements in dentofacial profile resulted from 6 months of treatment with maxillary expansion and protraction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8540481     DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70161-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  23 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Moritz Foersch; Collin Jacobs; Susanne Wriedt; Marlene Hechtner; Heinrich Wehrbein
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Comparison of the soft and hard tissue effects of two different protraction mechanisms in class III patients: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mevlut Celikoglu; Ibrahim Yavuz; Tuba Unal; Husamettin Oktay; Abdulvahit Erdem
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 3.573

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.  Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study.

Authors:  Demet Kaya; Ilken Kocadereli; Bahadir Kan; Ferda Tasar
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 2.079

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

Authors:  Hyeon-Jong Lee; Dong-Soon Choi; Insan Jang; Bong-Kuen Cha
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Effects of chincup or facemask therapies on the orofacial airway and hyoid position in Class III subjects.

Authors:  Mehmet Akin; Faruk Izzet Ucar; Chousein Chousein; Zafer Sari
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.938

7.  Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions : A randomized controlled clinical study.

Authors:  Mehmet Ali Yavan; Aysegul Gulec; Metin Orhan
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 1.938

8.  Skeletal Class III malocclusion with unilateral congenitally missing maxillary incisor treated by maxillary protractor and edgewise appliances.

Authors:  Masako Tabuchi; Hayato Fukuoka; Ken Miyazawa; Shigemi Goto
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Evaluation of Skeletal and Dental Effects of Modified Jasper Jumper Appliance and Delaire Face Mask with Pancherz Analysis.

Authors:  Hülya Kılıçoğlu; Nilüfer Yılmaz Öğütlü; Ceylan Alioğlu Uludağ
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2017-03-01

10.  Modified tandem traction bow appliance compared with facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions.

Authors:  Tuba Tortop; Emine Kaygisiz; Deniz Gencer; Sema Yuksel; Zeynep Atalay
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.