A Comparative Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes of Mild Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Between Facemask and Facemask in Combination with a Miniscrew For Anchorage in Growing Patients: <i>A Single-center, Prospective Randomized Controlled trial</i>

Seiryu, Masahiro; Ida, Hiroto; Mayama, Atsushi; Sasaki, Satoshi; Sasaki, Shutaro; Deguchi, Toru; Takano‐Yamamoto, Teruko

doi:10.2319/101718-750.1

Cited by 27 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two hundred and eighty-three studies that did not correspond with the inclusion criteria were excluded based on the title and abstract. After reading the full text of the 35 studies, 18 studies (four RCTs 11 , 14 - 16 and 14 CCTs 4 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 17 - 25 ) involving a total of 667 patients were finally included. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram is given in Figure 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different types of modified skeletal anchorage devices have been applied for maxillary protraction in the orthodontic clinic, 10 , 11 including the Hybrid Hyrax RME appliance. 12 However, these studies have not clarified whether appliances that combine tooth and bone anchorage provide better treatment effects than those using bone anchorage alone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the clinical effects of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices by using a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched seven databases for randomized and controlled clinical trials that compared bone-anchored maxillary protraction with tooth-anchored maxillary protraction interventions or untreated groups up to May 2021. After literature selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, we calculated the mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and surface under the cumulative ranking scores of eleven indicators. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software with the GeMTC package based on the Bayesian framework. Results: Six interventions and 667 patients were involved in 18 studies. In comparison with the tooth-anchored groups, the bone-anchored groups showed significantly more increases in Sella-Nasion-Subspinale (°), Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale(°) and significantly fewer increases in mandibular plane angle and the labial proclination angle of upper incisors. In comparison with the control group, Sella-Nasion-Supramentale(°) decreased without any statistical significance in all treated groups. IMPA (angle of lower incisors and mandibular plane) decreased in groups with facemasks and increased in other groups. Conclusions: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction can promote greater maxillary forward movement and correct the Class III intermaxillary relationship better, in addition to showing less clockwise rotation of mandible and labial proclination of upper incisors. However, strengthening anchorage could not inhibit mandibular growth better and the lingual inclination of lower incisors caused by the treatment is related to the use of a facemask.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maxillary protraction with a facemask often causes tilted compensations of the upper and lower incisors. 18,19 Chen et al found that maxillary protraction, when performed during the late-mixed There were no significant differences between the different dentition stage groups in terms of SNB, indicating that mandibular growth was difficult to control. 3 Studies have shown that the orthopaedic force transformed the growth direction of the mandible, 21 promoted the clockwise rotation of the mandible and increased the height of the lower face.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effects of maxillary protraction in different stages of dentition in skeletal class III children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Wang

Yang

et al. 2022

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using maxillary protraction during different stages of the dentition by assessing changes in the jaws and inclination of incisors.Materials and methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web Of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Databases were searched without time limitations up to 15 January 2022. Google Scholar was used to search grey literature. We included cohort studies that compared the effect of maxillary protraction by analysing primary outcomes and were grouped in age-related conditions.Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were used for statistical analysis, followed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation analysis.Results: Six studies were finally included. The heterogeneity test showed P ≥ .1 and I 2 ≤ 50%, and a fixed-effect model was applied. Patients in the early treatment group (ETG) were mainly in the early-mixed dentition stage, while patients in the late treatment group (LTG) were in the late-mixed and early-permanent dentition stage.Meta-analysis showed that there were no statistical differences (P > .05) between the ETG and LTG groups in terms of SNA (the angle composed by point Sella-Nasion-Subspinale), SNB (the angle composed by point Sella-Nasion-Supramentale), ANB (the angle composed by point Subspinale-Nasion-Supramentale), Wits, U1/SN (the angle composed by the axis of upper incisors and Sella-Nasion plane) and L1/MP (the angle composed by the axis of lower incisors and the mandibular plane).

show abstract

“…FM therapy with a palatal miniscrew for anchorage may promote more maxillary forward growth than FM therapy alone. 23 However, skeletal anchorageassisted FM therapy may not be recommended for patients in primary and early mixed dentitions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment outcomes of various force applications in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion:

Lim¹,

Choi²,

Ahn³

et al. 2021

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes between intraoral light force application and extraoral heavy force application in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric data from 50 subjects with skeletal Class III malocclusion. In the first group (15 boys, 10 girls; 8.67 ± 2.13 years old), each subject wore a biocreative horseshoe appliance (CHS) with two Class III elastics that exerted a force of 200 g. In the second group (13 boys, 12 girls; 8.96 ± 1.82 years old), each subject wore a Petit-type facemask and a lingual arch with hooks fixed to the maxillary arch with a total force of 700 g. Both groups of patients were instructed to wear the appliance approximately 14 hours a day, and 22 linear measurements and 8 angular measurements were evaluated. Changes of measurements from each group were compared by paired t-tests, considering a 5% significance level. Results Forward growth of the maxilla, improvement of the maxilla–mandible relationship, and upper incisor flaring were achieved in both groups without any statistically significant difference between them. Lateral cephalometric analysis also showed that U1 exposure, IMPA (Angle between mandibular plane and mandibular incisor axis), FMIA (Angle between FH plan and mandibular incisor axis), and L1-APog (Angle formed by the intersection of tooth axis of lower incisor and A-Pog line, Distance from lower incisor edge to A-Pog line) showed statistically significant differences. Lower incisors were inclined lingually in the CHS group. Conclusions During treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion, the CHS with light Class III intermaxillary elastics therapy exhibits similar orthopedic changes to the maxillary complex and more dental changes to the lower anterior teeth compared with facemask therapy.

show abstract

A Comparative Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes of Mild Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Between Facemask and Facemask in Combination with a Miniscrew For Anchorage in Growing Patients: A Single-center, Prospective Randomized Controlled trial

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Clinical effects of maxillary protraction in different stages of dentition in skeletal class III children: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Treatment outcomes of various force applications in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion:

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About