Dentofacial and skeletal effects of two orthodontic maxillary protraction protocols: bone anchors versus facemask.

IF 2.4 2区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Head & Face Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1186/s13005-024-00462-w

Maike Tabellion, Jörg Alexander Lisson

{"title":"Dentofacial and skeletal effects of two orthodontic maxillary protraction protocols: bone anchors versus facemask.","authors":"Maike Tabellion, Jörg Alexander Lisson","doi":"10.1186/s13005-024-00462-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Maxillary retrognathia and/or mandibular prognathia are resulting in class III malocclusion. Regarding orthodontic class III malocclusion treatment, the literature reports several treatment approaches. This comparative clinical study investigated two maxillary protraction protocols including bone anchors and Delaire type facemask.Methods: Cephalometric radiographs of n = 31 patients were used for data acquisition. The patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment protocol: bone anchored protraction (n = 12, 8 female, 4 male; mean age 11.00 ± 1.76 years; average application: 13.50 ± 5.87 months) and facemask protraction (n = 19, 11 female, 8 male; mean age 6.74 ± 1.15 years; average application: 9.95 ± 4.17 months). The evaluation included established procedures for measurements of the maxilla, mandibula, incisor inclination and soft tissue. Statistics included Shapiro-Wilk- and T-Tests for the radiographs. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.Results: The cephalometric analysis showed differences among the two groups. SNA angle showed significant improvements during protraction with bone anchors (2.30 ± 1.18°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 2.01 ± 2.65 mm. SNA angle improved also during protraction with facemask (1.22 ± 2.28°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 1.85 ± 4.09 mm. Proclination of maxillary incisors was larger in patients with facemask (3.35 ± 6.18°) and ML-SN angle increased more (1.05 ± 1.51°) than in patients with bone anchors. Loosening rate of bone anchors was 14.58%.Conclusions: Both treatment protocols led to correction of a class III malocclusion. However, this study was obtained immediately after protraction treatment and longitudinal observations after growth spurt will be needed to verify the treatment effects over a longer period. The use of skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction reduces unwanted side effects and increases skeletal effects needed for class III correction.","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487849/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00462-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Maxillary retrognathia and/or mandibular prognathia are resulting in class III malocclusion. Regarding orthodontic class III malocclusion treatment, the literature reports several treatment approaches. This comparative clinical study investigated two maxillary protraction protocols including bone anchors and Delaire type facemask.

Methods: Cephalometric radiographs of n = 31 patients were used for data acquisition. The patients were divided into two groups according to their treatment protocol: bone anchored protraction (n = 12, 8 female, 4 male; mean age 11.00 ± 1.76 years; average application: 13.50 ± 5.87 months) and facemask protraction (n = 19, 11 female, 8 male; mean age 6.74 ± 1.15 years; average application: 9.95 ± 4.17 months). The evaluation included established procedures for measurements of the maxilla, mandibula, incisor inclination and soft tissue. Statistics included Shapiro-Wilk- and T-Tests for the radiographs. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: The cephalometric analysis showed differences among the two groups. SNA angle showed significant improvements during protraction with bone anchors (2.30 ± 1.18°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 2.01 ± 2.65 mm. SNA angle improved also during protraction with facemask (1.22 ± 2.28°) with increase in the Wits appraisal of 1.85 ± 4.09 mm. Proclination of maxillary incisors was larger in patients with facemask (3.35 ± 6.18°) and ML-SN angle increased more (1.05 ± 1.51°) than in patients with bone anchors. Loosening rate of bone anchors was 14.58%.

Conclusions: Both treatment protocols led to correction of a class III malocclusion. However, this study was obtained immediately after protraction treatment and longitudinal observations after growth spurt will be needed to verify the treatment effects over a longer period. The use of skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction reduces unwanted side effects and increases skeletal effects needed for class III correction.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

两种上颌正畸牵引方案对牙面和骨骼的影响：骨锚与面罩。

背景介绍上颌后缩和/或下颌前突导致 III 类错牙合畸形。关于 III 类错牙合畸形的正畸治疗，文献报道了多种治疗方法。这项临床对比研究调查了两种上颌前突治疗方案，包括骨锚和德莱尔型面罩：方法：收集 n = 31 名患者的头颅X光片数据。根据治疗方案将患者分为两组：骨固定牵引（n = 12，8 名女性，4 名男性；平均年龄为 11.00 ± 1.76 岁；平均应用时间为 13.50 ± 5.87 个月：13.50 ± 5.87 个月）和面罩牵引（n = 19，女性 11 人，男性 8 人；平均年龄 6.74 ± 1.15 岁；平均应用时间：9.95 ± 4.17 个月）。评估包括测量上颌骨、下颌骨、门牙倾斜度和软组织的既定程序。统计数据包括对射线照片的 Shapiro-Wilk 检验和 T 检验。显著性水平设定为 p 结果：头颅测量分析表明两组之间存在差异。在使用骨锚进行牵引时，SNA 角有明显改善（2.30 ± 1.18°），Wits 评估值增加了 2.01 ± 2.65 mm。在使用面罩进行牵引时，SNA 角也有所改善（1.22 ± 2.28°），Wits 评估值增加了 1.85 ± 4.09 mm。与使用骨锚的患者相比，使用面罩的患者上颌切牙的倾斜度更大（3.35 ± 6.18°），ML-SN 角的增加幅度更大（1.05 ± 1.51°）。骨锚松动率为 14.58%：两种治疗方案都能矫正 III 类错牙合畸形。结论：两种治疗方案都能矫正 III 度错牙合畸形，但本研究是在牵引治疗后立即进行的，因此需要在生长高峰后进行纵向观察，以验证较长时间内的治疗效果。在上颌前突治疗中使用骨骼锚可以减少不必要的副作用，并提高 III 类错牙合畸形矫正所需的骨骼效果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

3.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.