2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0037-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential treatment effects of two anchorage systems for rapid maxillary expansion: a retrospective cephalometric study

Abstract: Hybrid (combined tooth- and bone-borne) appliances for rapid maxillary expansion might be preferable in the treatment of skeletal Class III patients, since they possibly exert a more pronounced skeletal effect on the sagittal position of the maxilla.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the sagittal and vertical measurements, our data clearly showed that in all classes of malocclusion, there was a slightly forward displacement of the maxilla and backward rotation of mandible in the sagittal plane, this forward displacement was more prominence and significant in Class III than Class II and Class I patients. is result is in accordance with the study conducted by Hourfar et al [44] which reported advancement of the maxilla based on SNA in the Class III patients treated with a combined tooth-and bone-borne appliance. It should be noted that in our study, even the ANB difference in Class III patients improved by +1.6° as the result of an anterior movement of the maxilla and downward and backward rotation of the mandible, the amount of maxillary forward movement was small (+0.88°), which might not be clinically significant.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…For the sagittal and vertical measurements, our data clearly showed that in all classes of malocclusion, there was a slightly forward displacement of the maxilla and backward rotation of mandible in the sagittal plane, this forward displacement was more prominence and significant in Class III than Class II and Class I patients. is result is in accordance with the study conducted by Hourfar et al [44] which reported advancement of the maxilla based on SNA in the Class III patients treated with a combined tooth-and bone-borne appliance. It should be noted that in our study, even the ANB difference in Class III patients improved by +1.6° as the result of an anterior movement of the maxilla and downward and backward rotation of the mandible, the amount of maxillary forward movement was small (+0.88°), which might not be clinically significant.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…CBCT results showed a more pronounced increase in the maxillary skeletal width in the premolar region with the Hybrid Hyrax appliance (Table 3), possibly because of skeletal anchorage. 14,22 In the molar region (Table 3), a significant difference was observed between the groups for maxillary width, with a higher increase in HHG than in HG (Table 3). Garib et al 22 found similar results and suggested that hybrid appliances had a higher orthopedic effect in this region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…10 In addition, the device can be used with digital technology for better accuracy in appliance manufacturing. 11,12 Despite its safety and efficacy, 13,14 there is a lack of evidence on the effects of Hybrid Hyrax on RME in growing patients. Initial discussions and analyses showed optimal results related to the effect of the appliance as a skeletal anchorage during maxillary protraction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the clinical limitations of these devices are not clear (Hourfar et al. ). To date, no clear scientific evidence exists for the clinical indications, limitations and restrictions for the application of RME in adult patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%