Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex

Hata, Shunji; Itoh, Tetsuhiko; Nakagawa, M; Kamogashira, K; Ichikawa, Kazuhiro; Matsumoto, Mitsunari; Chaconas, Spiro J.

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(87)90171-5

Cited by 100 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…37 Moreover, dry human skull studies have demonstrated that different protraction heights, different force directions, and different points of force application can produce different maxillary rotation directions. 36,38 Based on findings from previous studies, we adjusted the elastic direction to 15 to 30 downward from the occlusal plane to reduce maxillary rotation. 7,11,34,36,39 However, SN/PP in the RPE/C group rotated more counterclockwise than in the RPE group in our study.…”

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidence Intermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Liu

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidence Intermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Liu

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Maxillary protraction separates circummaxillary sutures and stimulates forward and downward movement of the maxillary complex, clockwise rotation of the mandible, and linguoversion of lower incisors (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). However, because maxillary protraction imparts force posteriorly to the mandible, changes in the mandibular fossa and the positions of the mandible body and condyles are expected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional changes in the temporomandibular joint after maxillary protraction in children with skeletal Class III malocclusion

Lee

Son

Kwak

et al. 2016

Journal of Oral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated 3-dimensional changes in the temporomandibular joints of children with skeletal Class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency after facemask therapy for maxillary protraction. Eighteen children with anterior crossbite and a Class III molar relationship underwent facemask therapy for maxillary protraction, after which they exhibited positive overjet and a Class II molar relationship. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography images of the patients were obtained before (T1) and after (T2) facemask protraction, and the 3-dimensional coordinates of the anatomical landmarks in T1 and T2 images were compared. After facemask therapy, the mandibular condyles of the patients were displaced outside, upward, and backward. Additionally, the anterior and posterior walls of the glenoid fossa had negative values for anteroposterior change. Three-dimensional analysis of the temporomandibular joint showed that facemask therapy resulted in bone apposition (to the anterior wall) and bone resorption (of the posterior wall) in the glenoid fossa. This bone remodeling resulted in upward and backward displacement of the condyle.(J Oral Sci 58, 501-508, 2016)

show abstract

“…15,16 In the current technique, bone-borne hooks were designed to draw the bone forward, coinciding with the plane of maximum resistance. [17][18][19] This position allows the midfacial skeleton to be protracted balanced without rotation (Fig 19). The direction of distraction can be adjusted straight-forward or inferioranteriorly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sutural Distraction Osteogenesis (SDO) Versus Osteotomy Distraction Osteogenesis (ODO) for Midfacial Advancement: A New Technique and Primary Clinical Report

Liu¹,

Hou²,

Liu³

et al. 2005

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new technique of osteotomy distraction osteogenesis (ODO) and sutural distraction osteogenesis (SDO) by the use of bone-borne traction hooks is presented. The technique of osteotomy plus distraction osteogenesis is suitable for adult patients. The technique of sutural distraction osteogenesis is suitable for young patients, ages 6 through 12 years. The distraction system consists of a face-bow, orthodontic elastics, and bone-borne traction hooks. The bone-borne traction hooks are made of titanium, with two traction hooks running laterally or downwardly. When a Le Fort III osteotomy is needed, bone-borne traction hooks are inserted through the nostrils into a bone hole drilled at the lateral-inferior pyriform aperture. When no osteotomy is needed, only the bone-borne traction hooks are placed. Heavy elastics were used in the technique of osteotomy distraction osteogenesis for Le Fort III osteotomy adult patients, whereas light forces and thus light elastics were used for younger patients. Three adult patients and four children were treated by osteotomy distraction and sutural distraction, respectively. All seven patients with midfacial hypoplasia established a harmonious facial profile and normal occlusal relationships. Radiographic examination showed balanced advancement of the midfacial skeleton. It is suggested that the treatment of midfacial hypoplasia in children by the technique of sutural distraction osteogenesis is to be preferred because of its simplicity and relative noninvasiveness. Thus, the authors suggest that midfacial hypoplasia should be treated at a younger age by this technique, potentially eliminating the need for a Le Fort III osteotomy at an older age.

show abstract

Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex

Cited by 100 publications

References 11 publications

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Three-dimensional changes in the temporomandibular joint after maxillary protraction in children with skeletal Class III malocclusion

Sutural Distraction Osteogenesis (SDO) Versus Osteotomy Distraction Osteogenesis (ODO) for Midfacial Advancement: A New Technique and Primary Clinical Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About