Literature DB >> 8670927

Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protraction.

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

Abstract

A prospective clinical trial was conducted to determine the skeletal and dental contributions to the correction of overjet and overbite in Class III patients. Thirty patients (12 males and 18 females with a mean age of 8.4 +/- 1.7 years) were treated consecutively with protraction headgear and fixed maxillary expansion appliances. For each patient, a lateral cephalogram was taken 6 months before treatment (T0); immediately before treatment (T1); and 6 months after treatment (T2). The time period (T1-T0) represented changes due to 6 months of growth without treatment; (T2-T1) represented 6 months of growth and treatment. Each patient served as his/her own control. Cephalometric analysis described by Björk (1947) and Pancherz (1982a,b) was used. Sagittal and vertical measurements were made along the occlusal plane (OLs) and the occlusal plane perpendicular (OLp), and superimposed on the mid-sagittal cranial structure. The results revealed the following: with 6 months of treatment, all subjects were treated to Class I or overcorrected to Class I or Class II dental arch relationships. Overjet and sagittal molar relationships improved by an average of 6.2 and 4.5 mm, respectively. This was a result of 1.8 mm of forward maxillary growth, a 2.5-mm of backward movement of the mandible, a 1.7-mm of labial movement of maxillary incisors, a 0.2-mm of lingual movement of mandibular incisors, and a 0.2-mm of greater mesial movement of maxillary than mandibular molars. The mean overbite reduction was 2.6 mm. Maxillary and mandibular molars were erupted occlusally by 0.9 and 1.4 mm, respectively. The mandibular plane angle was increased by 1.5 degrees and the lower facial height by 2.9 mm. Individual variations in response to maxillary protraction was large for most of the parameters tested. Significant differences in treatment changes between male and female subjects were found only in the vertical eruption of mandibular incisors and maxillary and mandibular molars. These results demonstrate that significant overjet and overbite corrections can be obtained with 6 months of maxillary protraction in combination with a fixed expansion appliance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8670927     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/18.2.151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  15 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.  A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  J Seehra; P S Fleming; N Mandall; A T Dibiase
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Very early orthodontic treatment: when, why and how?

Authors:  Ute E M Schneider-Moser; Lorenz Moser
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2022-06-10

5.  Does the Alternate Rapid Maxillary ExpansionConstriction/Reverse Headgear Therapy Enhance Pharyngeal Airway Dimensions?

Authors:  Nivethitha Bhaskar; Shobha Sundareswaran; Latheef Vadakkeypeediakkal; Praveen Santhakumar; Sreehari Sathyanathan
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2022-03

6.  Segmental LeFort I osteotomy for treatment of a Class III malocclusion with temporomandibular disorder.

Authors:  Marcos Janson; Guilherme Janson; Eduardo Sant'Ana; Alexandre Nakamura; Marcos Roberto de Freitas
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.698

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.  Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Hyo-Won Ahn; Keun-Woo Kim; Il-Hyung Yang; Jin-Young Choi; Seung-Hak Baek
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-01       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.