Protraction of the maxillofacial complex

Mermigos, Jane; Full, Clemens A.; Andreasen, George F.

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(90)70031-7

Cited by 122 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In several FM studies, a backward rotation of the mandible and an increase in lower facial height were reported. 11,27 However, some studies 5,28 reported that the posterior/anterior face-height ratio remained unchanged; in accordance with this finding, a nonsignificant change was observed in the SN/GoGn angle. The significant decrease in overbite in the treatment groups might be due to maxillary incisor protrusion and changes in lower facial height.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions

Gencer¹,

Kaygisiz

Yüksel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the treatment effects of double-plate appliance/facemask (DPA-FM) combined therapy and facemask (FM) therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Materials and Methods: The material consisted of lateral cephalometric radiographs of 45 children with skeletal and dental Class III malocclusion. The first treatment group comprised 15 patients (mean age 5 11 years) treated with FM. The second treatment group comprised 15 patients (mean age 510 years 9 months) treated with DPA-FM. The third group comprised 15 patients (mean age 5 10 years 5 months) used as controls. The paired t-test was used to evaluate the treatment effects and changes during the treatment and observation period in each group. Differences between the groups were determined by variance analysis and the Duncan test. Results: With the DPA-FM and FM appliances, the SNA and ANB angles increased significantly. These changes were statistically different compared with the control group. Lower facial height showed a greater increase in both treatment groups than in the control group. Molar relation showed a greater increase in the DPA-FM group than in the FM group. The increase in U6/ANS-PNS angle in the FM group was significantly different from the DPA-FM and control groups. The L1/NB angle and Pg-T increased significantly only in the FM group, but no significant difference was found between the treatment groups. Conclusions: In the treatment of Class III malocclusion, both appliances were effective. The significant sagittal changes in the lower incisors and pogonion in the FM group compared with the nonsignificant changes in the DPA-FM group might be due to the restriction effect of acrylic blocks in the DPA-FM group. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:278-283.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions

Gencer¹,

Kaygisiz

Yüksel

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,9 Initial observations on the effects of posteroanterior traction of the maxillary complex in the treatment of Class III malocclusion demonstrated skeletal protraction of the maxilla and the dentition, improvement of the ANB angle, backward and downward rotation of mandible with augmentation of facial height, and lingual tipping of the mandibular incisors. [10][11][12][13] These results were often confirmed in controlled trials that usually included combined maxillary expansion and FM therapy. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Clinical studies have also shown variable effects of maxillary protraction therapy on the amount of mandibular growth, with a tendency toward Class III relapse when the mandible rotated downward and backward during treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in Class III malocclusion

Cozza¹,

Baccetti²,

Mucedero³

et al. 2010

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:In this cephalometric investigation, we analyzed the treatment and posttreatment effects of an orthopedic protocol for Class III malocclusion consisting of a facial mask combined with a removable biteblock appliance. Methods: The treated sample consisted of 22 Class III patients treated with the facial mask and bite-block protocol before the pubertal growth spurt (mean age, 8.9 6 1.5 years). Treated subjects were evaluated after facial mask and bite-block therapy and at a posttreatment observation in absence of retention. The treated group was compared with a matched control group of 12 untreated Class III subjects. All treated and control subjects were postpubertal at the final observation. Significant differences between the treated and control groups were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test (P \0.05). Results: Both angular and linear sagittal measurements of the maxilla showed significant improvements during active treatment. Significant improvements of SNA angle, ANB angle, overjet, and molar relationship remained stable during the posttreatment period. No significant effect was found in the mandibular skeletal measures. No significant protraction of the maxillary incisors or retraction of the mandibular incisors was observed. Conclusions: A bite-block appliance in the mandibular arch with a facial mask enabled effective control of mandibular rotation with progressive closure of the gonial angle. This added to the favorable maxillary outcomes of the treatment protocol. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:300-10)

show abstract

“…21 Our results showed that both treatment groups induced significant advancement of the maxilla associated with larger amounts of maxillary growth and the inhibition of sagittal mandibular growth with respect to the control group, consistent with previous studies reporting maxillary protraction between 1-3 mm. 1,4 The mandible showed significant counterclockwise rotation and protrusion in the control group compared to the treatment groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of reverse headgear on pharyngeal airway in patients with different vertical craniofacial features

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of reverse headgear (RH) on pharyngeal airway morphology in two groups of Class III patients with different vertical craniofacial features in comparison with an untreated Class III group. Seventeen subjects (9 males, 8 females; mean age 11.3 ± 0.98 years) with optimum vertical growth and 17 subjects (10 males, 7 females, mean age 11.5 ± 1.1 years) with a vertical growth pattern treated with a removable intra-oral appliance and a Delaire type facemask were included. An untreated Class III control group of 11 subjects (8 males, 3 females, mean age 9.1 ± 1.1 years) was included to compare the treated groups. The paired t-test for intragroup and one-way ANOVA for intergroup comparisons were performed. The relationships between changes in the craniofacial morphology and airway were assessed by Spearman correlation analysis. The airway dimensions at the adenoid side and soft palate were increased in the treatment groups compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The nasopharyngeal area demonstrated a significant difference in normodivergent and control subjects (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found in the airway morphology due to different vertical features. The effect of RH treatment on the sagittal airway dimensions revealed no significant difference between different vertical craniofacial features in the short term.

show abstract

Protraction of the maxillofacial complex

Cited by 122 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions

Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions

Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in Class III malocclusion

Effects of reverse headgear on pharyngeal airway in patients with different vertical craniofacial features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About