Maxillary Protraction With Intermaxillary Elastics to Miniplates Versus Bone-Anchored Face-Mask Therapy in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.

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.