Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage

Şar, Çağla; Arman-Özçırpıcı, Ayça; Uçkan, Sina; Yazıcı, Ayşe Canan

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.039

Cited by 105 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies 8,9 have shown that the facemasks in conjunction with bone-borne anchorage devices result in greater maxillary advancement than those with tooth-borne anchorage devices, but this was not found in our study. The probable reason might have been due to magnitude of protraction force.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…In patients treated with facemask and various bone-borne anchors, maxillary advancement ranged from 2.0 mm to 4.8 mm. [4][5][6][7][8][9] Singer et al 4 reported maxillary advancement of 4 mm by using osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to facemask therapy. Enacar et al 5 demonstrated that the entire maxillary complex was affected positively by 4 mm of advancement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3] Orthopedic anchorage for maxillary protraction is a new area of research and has been used increasingly over recent years. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Miniplates 6-10 have been reported successful for maxillary protraction in Class III patients. In 1997, Kanomi 13 first mentioned a temporarily placed miniscrew for orthodontic anchorage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction

Liu

Chen

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the dentofacial effects of maxillary protraction with two facemask therapies in growing Class III patients: facemask in association with miniscrew implants (MSI/FM) and facemask with rapid maxillary expanders (RME/FM). Materials and Methods: Forty-three Chinese patients with Class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency were randomly assigned to a MSI/FM sample of 20 patients and a RME/FM sample of 23 subjects. The changes in dentofacial cephalometric variables from the beginning (T1) to the end of treatment (T2) were compared with t-test for paired samples in both groups and for independent samples between the two groups. Results: No significant cephalometric differences were observed between the two groups in active treatment effects except for maxillary dental variables. However, significant favorable changes in both maxillary and mandibular skeletal components were noted in two groups after treatment. Sagittal measurements showed the maxilla was advanced, mandibular projection was reduced, and the relative sagittal intermaxillary discrepancy improved. Patients experienced additional unfavorable outcomes of clockwise rotation of the mandible as well as retroclination of the lower incisors. The soft tissue profile was improved remarkably in both groups. Proclination of the maxillary incisors and mesialization of the maxillary dentition were significantly different between the two groups. The increases in U1-SN, U1-VR, and U6-VR were 6.41u, 2.78 mm, and 1.24 mm less in the MSI/FM group than in the RME/FM group, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the RME/FM therapy, the MSI/FM protocol using a smaller magnitude of protraction force improves skeletal relationships and soft tissue profile and reduces the undesired dentoalveolar effects. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1083-1091

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction

Liu

Chen

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ortodontik ve ortopedik amaçlarla kullanılan iskeletsel ankraj sistemleri üzerine bir çok klinik ve deneysel çalışma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmalar; dental implantlar (11)(12)(13)(14), onplantlar (15), zigomatik teller (16), Graz implantlar (17), biyolojik olarak parçalanan implantlar (18), modüler geçici implantlar (19), mini/mikro vidalar (20-21) ve miniplaklar (22)(23) kullanan yöntemleri içerir.…”

Section: Sum Maryunclassified

“…Many clinical and experimental studies were published on skeletal anchorage systems used for orthodontic and orthopedic purposes. These studies involved methods using dental implants (11)(12)(13)(14), onplants (15), zygomatic wires (16), Graz implants (17), biodegradable implants (18), modular transitional implants (19), mini/micro screws (20)(21) and miniplates (22)(23).…”

Section: Sum Marymentioning

confidence: 99%

Minivida İmplant Destekli Distalizasyon Sisteminin Dentoalveoler Etkileri

Şar¹,

Özsoy²,

Arman-Özçırpıcı³

et al. 2012

Turkish Journal of Orthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The aim of this prospective clinical study is to evaluate the treatment effects of the miniscrew implant supported distalization system in patients with Class II malocclusion. Subjects and Methods: The study sample consisted of 10 patients (5 girls and 5 boys) with a mean age of 14,9 years. Two titanium intermaxillary fixation screws were placed lateral to the foramen incisivum in the anterior paramedian region of the palate. Alginate impressions were taken and appliances were constructed on the model casts. The MISDS was cemented on the upper first molars, then connected to the miniscrews by means of metallic ligatures. The appliance was activated by squeezing the open coil springs. 200 g of distalization force was applied on each side. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained before (T0) and after (T1) the distalization were measured. Data was analysed by SPSS. Results: The mean maxillary first molar distalization was 2,45 mm (p<0.05) and 1° (p<0.05) slight distal tipping accompanied distalization. Maxillary second molars distalized 4.35 mm (p<0.05) and tipped 2°(p<0.05) distally. The upper second premolars showed 3 mm distal drift following the upper first molars and tipped 2.3°d istally, while 2.35 mm spontaneous distalization and 1.6° distal tipping were seen on the upper first premolars. Upper incisors were retroclined 1.45° (p<0.05), which decreased the overjet 0.8 mm. Conclusion: MISDS is an efficient way of noncompliance maxillary molar distalization which results with almost translatory distal upper molar movement. (Turkish J Orthod 2012;25:134-145)

show abstract