The Angle orthodontist · 2012
The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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 Nam-Ki, Yang Il-Hyung, Baek Seung-Hak
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy with miniplates (FM-MP) and face mask therapy with rapid maxillary expansion appliance (FM-RME) in growing Class III malocclusion patients with maxillary hypoplasia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were allocated into two groups according to the anchorage device: FM-MP group (n = 10; mean age = 11.2 ± 1.2 years; miniplates in the zygomatic buttress area) and FM-RME group (n = 10; mean age = 10.7 ± 1.3 years; bonded or banded RME). The face mask was applied for 12 to 14 hours/day in both groups with a force of 400 g/side directed 30° downward and forward from the occlusal plane. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after FM-MP or FM-RME therapy (T2). Skeletodental and soft-tissue variables were measured. Paired and independent t-tests were performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited significant forward movement of point A and posterior repositioning and opening rotation of the mandible from T2 to T1. The FM-MP group showed significant protraction of orbitale (ΔSNO), and the FM-RME group showed a decrease in overbite and an increase in Björk sum. Comparing the amount of changes between the two groups, the FM-MP group displayed greater forward movement of the maxilla than the FM-RME group (ΔSNA, ΔA to N perp, all P < .05). However, the FM-RME group exhibited a greater opening rotation of the mandible (ΔSNB, Björk sum, all P < .01; ΔPog to N-perp, P < .05) and labioversion of the maxillary incisors (ΔU1-FH, P < .05).
CONCLUSION: FM-MP therapy induces a greater advancement of the maxilla, less posterior repositioning and opening rotation of the mandible, and less proclination of the maxillary incisors than FM-RME therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were allocated into two groups according to the anchorage device: FM-MP group (n = 10; mean age = 11.2 ± 1.2 years; miniplates in the zygomatic buttress area) and FM-RME group (n = 10; mean age = 10.7 ± 1.3 years; bonded or banded RME). The face mask was applied for 12 to 14 hours/day in both groups with a force of 400 g/side directed 30° downward and forward from the occlusal plane. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after FM-MP or FM-RME therapy (T2). Skeletodental and soft-tissue variables were measured. Paired and independent t-tests were performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Both groups exhibited significant forward movement of point A and posterior repositioning and opening rotation of the mandible from T2 to T1. The FM-MP group showed significant protraction of orbitale (ΔSNO), and the FM-RME group showed a decrease in overbite and an increase in Björk sum. Comparing the amount of changes between the two groups, the FM-MP group displayed greater forward movement of the maxilla than the FM-RME group (ΔSNA, ΔA to N perp, all P < .05). However, the FM-RME group exhibited a greater opening rotation of the mandible (ΔSNB, Björk sum, all P < .01; ΔPog to N-perp, P < .05) and labioversion of the maxillary incisors (ΔU1-FH, P < .05).
CONCLUSION: FM-MP therapy induces a greater advancement of the maxilla, less posterior repositioning and opening rotation of the mandible, and less proclination of the maxillary incisors than FM-RME therapy.