Dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance (modified TTBA) in skeletal Class III subjects, and the effect of age on treatment response. The material consisted of the pre-treatment/pre-observation and post-treatment/post-observation lateral cephalograms and hand-wrist films of 45 children with skeletal and dental Class III malocclusions. Thirty patients were treated with a modified TTBA. Two treatment groups of 15 patients each were formed: an early (nine girls, six boys; mean skeletal age: 8.18 ± 0.50 years) and a late treatment (5 girls, 10 boys; mean skeletal age: 11.75 ± 1.00 years) group. The remaining 15 children (5 girls, 10 boys; mean skeletal age: 7.90 ± 0.62 years) were observed without treatment for 8 months and served as a control for the early treatment group. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for statistical analysis. Significant forward maxillary movement was determined in both treatment groups (P < 0.01) while the decrease in SNB was significantly greater in the early treatment group compared with the control (P < 0.01). Upper molar tipping and sagittal displacement of point A (point A-T, N(⊥)FH-A) was found to be significantly greater in the late treatment group compared with the early treatment group (P < 0.05). In both treatment groups, dental and skeletal correction of the Class III malocclusion was achieved.

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

“…A backward rotation of the mandible was among the results of several Class III treatment studies. 6,7,11,16,[19][20][21][22] Atalay and Tortop 14 reported the vertical control of the MTTBA as doubtful.…”

“…12,13 The tandem traction bow appliance (TTBA) was introduced as an intraoral appliance in the treatment of Class III malocclusion; it carried the expectation that it would result in enhanced patient cooperation. 5 Atalay and Tortop 14 reported that satisfactory correction of the skeletal and dental Class III malocclusion was obtained with a modified TTBA (MTTBA). A literature review showed that there are not any studies regarding the comparative evaluation of the effects of MTTBA and FM.…”

Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions

“…In the FM group, lower incisor uprighting occurred as a result of the pressure by the chincap. Atalay and Tortop 26 and Baik et al 29 reported similar results with different removable appliances. In several FM studies, proclination of the maxillary incisors and retroclination of the mandibular incisors were reported.…”

“…20,21 In Class III malocclusion treatment with functional appliances, backward rotation associated with a reduction in mandibular growth was reported. [4][5][6]17,18,[22][23][24][25][26] Seehra et al 27 reported that FM therapy had a greater effect on SNB than reverse twin block therapy, indicating a greater downward and backward rotational effect.…”

“…This result is in accordance with the results of previous studies that aimed to correct the skeletal Class III relation. 6,12,18,24,26 Both treatment approaches could be accepted as effective appliances in treating subjects with Class III malocclusion, as these changes were significantly different compared with the control group.…”