Long-term results of surgically assisted maxillary protraction vs regular facemask

Abstract

Long-term results of surgically assisted maxillary protraction vs regular facemask Ş irin Nevzatog lu a ; Nazan Kü çü kkeleş b ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the short-and long-term treatment results of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and surgical assistance during maxillary protraction with a facemask (FM). Materials and Methods: This study was carried out in 28 patients (12 male, 16 female) with maxillary retrognathism, anterior crossbite, and Class III skeletal and dental malocclusion characteristics. Seventeen patients (9 male, 8 female) with mild maxillary retrognathism were treated by RME and FM. The other 11 patients (8 female, 3 male), who had moderate to severe maxillary retrognathism, were treated with surgically assisted FM treatment. Patients treated with RME and FM were recalled after 5.64 years, and the surgically assisted FM group was recalled after 6.08 years. Cephalometric films taken before treatment (T 0 ), right after maxillary protraction (T 1 ), and at recall (T 2 ) were used to evaluate and compare the results.Results: In the short term, good maxillary advancement and a shorter treatment period were achieved with surgically assisted FM therapy. However, in the long term, maxillary advancement and some soft tissue improvements were lost. On the other hand, in the RME and FM protraction group, maxillary advancement and soft tissue improvement were well maintained. Conclusion: In the short term, statistically significant maxillary advancement was achieved with surgically assisted maxillary protraction. However, in the long term, these sagittal changes were not stable, whereas RME and FM provided stability.

Effect of face mask therapy on mandibular rotation considering initial and final vertical growth pattern: A longitudinal study

“…By the end of the treatment, the majority of patients maintained their initial vertical growth pattern, showing some changes in growth direction, mainly in those with neutral rotation. Of the former, some patients shifted toward having clockwise growth direction, whereas others had counterclockwise growth direction; suggesting that in response to therapy, changes toward clockwise mandibular rotations should not always be expected, as previously reported by others (Kiliçoglu & Kirliç, ; Nevzatoğlu & Küçükkeleş, ; Wolfe et al, ).…”

“…Maxillary protraction with FM in conjunction with rapid palatal expansion (RPE) is a currently used therapy for Class III patients with hypoplasia or maxillary retrusion. Studies comparing treated patients with an untreated control group have shown RPE/FM therapy to be effective, especially when used at an early age (Cordasco et al, 2014;Kiliçoglu & Kirliç, 1998;Mandall et al, 2010;Nevzatoğlu & Küçükkeleş, 2014). Additionally, RPE/FM therapy has also been reported to reduce the need of subsequent surgical treatment (Mandall et al, 2016).…”

“…Additionally, RPE/FM therapy has also been reported to reduce the need of subsequent surgical treatment (Mandall et al, 2016). However, counterclockwise maxillary rotation and clockwise mandibular rotation, which can be unfavorable for patients presenting clockwise vertical growth pattern, have been associated to RPE/FM treatment (Cordasco et al, 2014;Jamilian, Cannavale, Piancino, Eslami, & Perillo, 2016;Kiliçoglu & Kirliç, 1998;Nevzatoğlu & Küçükkeleş, 2014). Taking into account that RPE/FM is an effective and minimally invasive therapy for hypoplasic Class III patients, is relevant to determine whether unfavorable mandibular rotation effects are attributable to therapy, or are rather a continuation of previously established vertical growth pattern in these patients.…”

Treatment Options for Class III Malocclusion in Growing Patients with Emphasis on Maxillary Protraction

“…Low-angle Class III patients who exhibit severe retrognathism of the maxilla, patients who have lost chance of orthopedic correction, and patients who refuse to undergo orthognathic surgeries are candidates for corticotomy-assisted maxillary protraction [ 50 ]. Sutural distraction osteogenesis versus osteotomy distraction osteogenesis for protraction of midface has already been used.…”

“…Significant relapse of maxillary advancement was detected in a 6-year follow-up. However, well-preserved dental relationship was reported [ 54 ].…”