The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2016
Maxillary Protraction With Intermaxillary Elastics to Miniplates Versus Bone-Anchored Face-Mask Therapy in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jahanbin Arezoo, Kazemian Mozhgan, Eslami Neda, Pouya Iman Saeedi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cleft lip and palate patients usually have deficient maxilla due to postsurgical scars. The aim this study was to compare the effectiveness of miniplates-anchored face-mask therapy versus intermaxillary elastics to miniplates for maxillary traction in cleft lip and palate patients.
METHODS: This clinical trial included 11 prepubertal patients with cleft lip and palate. Initially, a w-arch expander was cemented and activated 3 mm per month to overcorrect the crossbite. Then, the patients were divided into 2 groups: mini-plate-anchored face-mask (n = 5): 2 miniplates were placed in the maxilla and the patients were instructed to wear a face-mask for 12 to 14 hours/per day. Intermaxillary elastics to miniplates (n = 6): 2 miniplates were inserted in the maxilla; 1 on each side and 2 miniplates were placed in the anterior mandible on both sides. Intermaxillary elastics with a force of 250 g per side were attached to the hooks. Cephalometric parameters before treatment (T1) and after achieving positive overjet (T2) were compared between the 2 groups. Fisher exact, paired, and independent t tests were used for statistical comparison.
RESULTS: At T1 or T2 there was not a significant difference between the 2 groups in the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue variables.
CONCLUSION: According to results of our preliminary study, intermaxillary elastics to miniplates might have a promising effect as an alternative for face mask therapy in maxillary protraction of cleft lip and palate patients.
METHODS: This clinical trial included 11 prepubertal patients with cleft lip and palate. Initially, a w-arch expander was cemented and activated 3 mm per month to overcorrect the crossbite. Then, the patients were divided into 2 groups: mini-plate-anchored face-mask (n = 5): 2 miniplates were placed in the maxilla and the patients were instructed to wear a face-mask for 12 to 14 hours/per day. Intermaxillary elastics to miniplates (n = 6): 2 miniplates were inserted in the maxilla; 1 on each side and 2 miniplates were placed in the anterior mandible on both sides. Intermaxillary elastics with a force of 250 g per side were attached to the hooks. Cephalometric parameters before treatment (T1) and after achieving positive overjet (T2) were compared between the 2 groups. Fisher exact, paired, and independent t tests were used for statistical comparison.
RESULTS: At T1 or T2 there was not a significant difference between the 2 groups in the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue variables.
CONCLUSION: According to results of our preliminary study, intermaxillary elastics to miniplates might have a promising effect as an alternative for face mask therapy in maxillary protraction of cleft lip and palate patients.