Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; A pilot study

Kaya, Demet; Kocadereli, İlken; Kan, Bahadır; Taşar, Ferda

doi:10.2319/081010-473.1

Cited by 64 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 37 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

“…12-25 TAD-anchored MP with miniplates is most frequently used; this procedure uses extraoral elastics [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and intermaxillary elastics. [21][22][23][24][25] In the former type, the miniplates are placed on the infrazygomatic crest or the lateral nasal walls of the maxilla, thus abandoning the intraoral appliance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Feng

Liu

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of temporary anchorage device (TAD)-anchored maxillary protraction (MP) in terms of the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes and to compare it with traditional tooth-anchored MP. Materials and Methods: A computerized literature search for relative randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CNKI, and Google Scholar, complemented with manual search. Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was followed when possible; otherwise, description was done. Results: Forty articles were found, among which four trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was significant difference between TAD-anchored MP and untreated control in terms of maxillary advancement (weighted mean differences (WMD) 3.08 mm; 95% CI: 1.61 to approximately 4.56; P , .0001), but there were no consistent points in terms of mandibular rotation. Also, there were significant differences between both treatment patterns regarding maxillary advancement (WMD 1.41 mm; 95% CI: 0.47 to approximately 2.35; P 5 .003), mandibular rotation (WMD 21.39u, 95% CI: 22.47 to approximately 20.31; P 5 .01), proclination of maxillary incisors (WMD 22.29u; 95% CI: 24.41 to approximately 20.17; P 5 .03), and extrusion of maxillary molars (WMD 21.68 mm; 95% CI: 22.51 to approximately 20.85; P , .0001). Conclusions: According to the present results, TAD-anchored MP might have a greater maxillary advancement effect and might reduce skeletal and dental side effects, compared with toothanchored MP.

show abstract

“…In tegenstelling tot de eerder genoemde tandgedragen methode werden hierdoor geen dentoalveolaire effecten in de maxilla waargenomen (Kaya et al, 2011). Behandelingen met een omgekeerde headgear zijn echter afhankelijk van de medewerking van de patiënt.…”

Section: Behandeling Met Behulp Van Skelettale Verankeringunclassified

Interceptieve behandeling van een maxillaire hypoplasie met behulp van botankers. Een literatuuronderzoek

Vermeulen¹,

Clerck²,

Beek³

et al. 2014

NTvT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Een Klasse III-malocclusie wordt meestal veroorzaakt door onderontwikkeling van de maxilla en daarom is behandeling hiervan gericht op stimulering van de groei van de maxilla. De nadelen van conventionele behandelmethoden zijn dat de behandeleffecten veelal dentoalveolair in plaats van skelettaal zijn en er vaak verlenging van de onderste gezichtshoogte optreedt. Bovendien is de medewerking van patiënten voor het dragen van extraorale apparatuur niet altijd groot. Vanwege deze nadelen is een nieuwe behandelmethode met behulp van skelettale verankering ontwikkeld. Bij deze nieuwe techniek, 'bone anchored maxillary protraction' genoemd, worden beiderzijds in de maxilla en de mandibula botankers geplaatst waaraan Klasse III-elastieken worden gedragen. Volgens de literatuur zijn met deze behandelmethode goede resultaten behaald. Nadeel is echter dat het plaatsen van de botankers een chirurgische behandeling vereist en dat complicaties, zoals het losraken of het breken van de ankers, kunnen optreden. hiermee vooral dentoalveolaire correcties worden verkregen. Bij een goede medewerking en een behandelingsduur van ten minste 5 jaar zijn ook wat skelettale effecten waargenomen (Levin et al, 2008).Een andere methode waarbij getracht wordt skelettale InleidingDe incidentie van Klasse III-malocclusie varieert van 6% in een Belgische populatie tot 22,4% in een Aziatische populatie (Willems et al, 2001;Soh et al, 2005). Skelettale Klasse III-malocclusie kan worden veroorzaakt door mandibulaire hyperplasie, maxillaire hypoplasie of een combinatie van beide (Fields en Proffit, 2000). In minder dan 20% van de gevallen is er sprake van een zuivere mandibulaire hyperplasie, bij 25% van een zuivere maxillaire hypoplasie en bij 22% van een combinatie van beide. De overige Klasse III-malocclusies berusten niet op een skelettale onbalans, maar is het probleem alleen dentoalveolair (Guyer et al, 1986). In het laatste geval kan de Klasse IIImalocclusie door middel van orthodontische behandeling met vaste apparatuur dentaal worden gecorrigeerd. Een grotere afwijking kan alleen door chirurgie worden gecorrigeerd, zoals door een osteotomie van de mandibula en/of de maxilla of door distractie van de maxilla (intermezzo 1). De interceptieve behandeling van Klasse III-malocclusies is gericht op stimulering van de groei van de maxilla. Conventionele behandeling van Klasse IIImalocclusie Praktijktoepassing?Wanneer een Klasse III-groeipatroon, veroorzaakt door een hypoplasie van de maxilla, op een jonge leeftijd gediagnosticeerd wordt, kan de groei van de maxilla gestimuleerd worden met Klasse III-elastieken die zijn bevestigd aan botankers.

show abstract

Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; A pilot study

Abstract: This treatment approach can offer an advantage for correcting mild/moderate maxillary retrusion in Class III patients.

Cited by 64 publications

References 37 publications

Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction

Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Interceptieve behandeling van een maxillaire hypoplasie met behulp van botankers. Een literatuuronderzoek

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About