Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of skeletal anchorage (SAMP) and tooth- borne (TBMP) maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in growing skeletal Class III patients.
Materials And Methods: Patients treated with maxillary protraction were selected and classified into two groups (SAMP: n = 19, mean age = 11.19 years; TBMP: n = 27, mean age = 11.21 years). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), after the maxillary protraction (T1), and after the fixed appliance treatment (T2) were analysed and all variables were statistically tested to find difference between the two groups.
Results: Compared to the TBMP, the SAMP showed significant forward growth of maxilla (Co-A point and SN-Orbitale) and improvement in intermaxillary relationship (ANB, AB to mandible plane, and APDI) after the overall treatment (T0-T2), with no significant sagittal changes in maxilla or mandible throughout the fixed appliance treatment (T1-T2).
Limitations: In maxillary protraction, effects of skeletal anchorage were retrospectively compared with those of dental anchorage, not with Class I or III control.
Conclusions And Implications: After maxillary protraction, skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage did not cause significant differences in the residual growth of maxilla throughout the phase II treatment. Orthopaedic effects with skeletal anchorage showed appropriate stability in maxilla and intermaxillary relationship even after fixed appliance treatment.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz086 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Dentoskeletal effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: Evaluating the role of mandibular anchorage bar and night facemask.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
December 2024
Piracicaba Dental School, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade de Campinas-UNICAMP, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address:
Introduction: This study evaluated the dentoskeletal effects of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction, which included a mandibular anchorage bar and a night facemask in adolescents.
Methods: A total of 20 growing patients with Class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency were treated with a hybrid hyrax expander with 2 miniscrews in the maxilla and a mandibular anchor bar supported in 2 miniscrews in the anterior region of the mandible. Class III elastics were used from the maxillary first molars to the mandibular anchorage bar, joining the mandibular miniscrews installed between permanent incisors and canines.
Post-pubertal effects of the Face Mask Protocol with and without Bite Block appliance in the orthopedic treatment of Class III malocclusion: a comparative evaluation.
Eur J Orthod
December 2024
Department of Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, UniCamillus International Medical University, Via di Sant'Alessandro 8, 00131 Rome, Italy.
Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the dento-skeletal changes observed in growing Class III patients treated with the Face Mask Protocol (FMP) with and without Bite Block (BB).
Materials: Thirty subjects (12 f, 18 m) who underwent FM/BB therapy were compared to a matched group (FM) of 29 patients (15 f, 14 m) treated without BB. All patients were evaluated before treatment (T0), at the end of active treatment (T1), and at a post-pubertal follow-up observation (T2).
Maxillary protraction anchored on miniplates versus miniscrews: three-dimensional dentoskeletal comparison.
Eur J Orthod
December 2024
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 N University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.
Objective: This retrospective study aimed to compare the three-dimensional (3D) outcomes of the novel miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy and the bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) therapy.
Methods: The sample comprised growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with two skeletal anchored maxillary protraction protocols. The MAMP group comprised 22 patients (9 female, 13 male; 10.
Oral Rehabilitation After Maxillary Protraction With Skeletal Anchorage in a Patient With Oligodontia.
J Craniofac Surg
December 2024
Deparment of Restorative Dentistry, Buyukcavus Dental Clinic, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of skeletal anchorage-supported maxillary protraction and prostetic restoration in a patient with class III malocclusion and hypodontia.
Methods: Anchorage plates were placed in the apertura piriformis region as skeletal anchorage support. Subsequently, 500 g orthopedic force per side was applied for maxillary protraction.
Comparison of the effectiveness of skeletal and tooth-borne protraction methods with or without alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocol in patients with Class III malocclusion.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
December 2024
Department of Orthodontics, Dentistry Faculty, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey. Electronic address:
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the efficiency of maxillary protraction achieved through facemask treatment with either a hybrid-hyrax (HH) or an acrylic cap splint (ACS) appliance when used in conjunction with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) or conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME) protocols.
Methods: This study analyzed a total of 60 patients in 4 groups of 15 patients each and treated with HH-Alt-RAMEC protocol (HH-Alt, aged 10.38 ± 1.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!