American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2022
Treatment effects of maxillary protraction with palatal plates vs conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lee You-Sun, Park Jae Hyun, Kim Jaehyun, Lee Nam-Ki, Kim Yoonji, Kook Yoon-Ah
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Evaluate the treatment effects of maxillary protraction using palatal plates and compare them to those with conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.
METHODS: Forty patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of anchorage used: group 1 (n = 20; mean age, 10.5 ± 1.6 years; palatal plates) and group 2 (n = 20; mean age, 10.0 ± 1.2 years; tooth-borne appliances). Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after maxillary protraction. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables were measured. For statistical analysis, paired and independent t tests were performed.
RESULTS: Group 1 showed maxilla advancement by 2.3 ± 1.0 mm compared with group 2 by 0.9 ± 0.6 mm, and group 2 indicated clockwise rotation of the mandible, but there was no such clockwise rotation in group 1 (P <0.001). Group 1 had a less lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than group 2 (IMPA, -1.0 ± 3.8° vs -3.8 ± 2.8°; P <0.05). There was no difference in soft-tissue changes between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A facemask with palatal plate induced maxillary advancement with less mandibular clockwise rotation and dental movement than conventional tooth-borne anchorage. This modality can be used efficiently for maxillary protraction in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.
METHODS: Forty patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of anchorage used: group 1 (n = 20; mean age, 10.5 ± 1.6 years; palatal plates) and group 2 (n = 20; mean age, 10.0 ± 1.2 years; tooth-borne appliances). Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after maxillary protraction. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables were measured. For statistical analysis, paired and independent t tests were performed.
RESULTS: Group 1 showed maxilla advancement by 2.3 ± 1.0 mm compared with group 2 by 0.9 ± 0.6 mm, and group 2 indicated clockwise rotation of the mandible, but there was no such clockwise rotation in group 1 (P <0.001). Group 1 had a less lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than group 2 (IMPA, -1.0 ± 3.8° vs -3.8 ± 2.8°; P <0.05). There was no difference in soft-tissue changes between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A facemask with palatal plate induced maxillary advancement with less mandibular clockwise rotation and dental movement than conventional tooth-borne anchorage. This modality can be used efficiently for maxillary protraction in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.