A Bayesian network meta‐analysis of orthopaedic treatment in Class III malocclusion: Maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage or a rapid maxillary expander

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Zuping Wu ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Zixuan Li ◽  
Yuyao Liu ◽  
Hairu Jin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Orthopaedic Treatment

Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in Class III malocclusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Hoon Lee ◽  
Sang-Duck Koh ◽  
Dong-Hwa Chung ◽  
Jin-Woo Lee ◽  
Sang-Min Lee
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Residual Growth

Summary Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the results of skeletal anchorage (SAMP) and tooth- borne (TBMP) maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in growing skeletal Class III patients. Materials and methods Patients treated with maxillary protraction were selected and classified into two groups (SAMP: n = 19, mean age = 11.19 years; TBMP: n = 27, mean age = 11.21 years). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), after the maxillary protraction (T1), and after the fixed appliance treatment (T2) were analysed and all variables were statistically tested to find difference between the two groups. Results Compared to the TBMP, the SAMP showed significant forward growth of maxilla (Co-A point and SN-Orbitale) and improvement in intermaxillary relationship (ANB, AB to mandible plane, and APDI) after the overall treatment (T0–T2), with no significant sagittal changes in maxilla or mandible throughout the fixed appliance treatment (T1–T2). Limitations In maxillary protraction, effects of skeletal anchorage were retrospectively compared with those of dental anchorage, not with Class I or III control. Conclusions and implications After maxillary protraction, skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage did not cause significant differences in the residual growth of maxilla throughout the phase II treatment. Orthopaedic effects with skeletal anchorage showed appropriate stability in maxilla and intermaxillary relationship even after fixed appliance treatment.

scholarly journals Skeletal Class III malocclusion treatment using mandibular and maxillary skeletal anchorage and intermaxillary elastics: a case report

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 52-59
Author(s):  
Mehrnaz Fakharian ◽  
Erfan Bardideh ◽  
Mostafa Abtahi
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Skeletal Malocclusion ◽  
Mandibular Plane ◽  
Surgical Treatments

ABSTRACT Introduction: Skeletal Class III malocclusion is one of the most challenging malocclusions to treat. In around 40% of Class III patients, maxillary retrognathia is the main cause of the problem and in most patients, orthopedic/surgical treatments includes some type of maxillary protraction. Objective: The aim of this case report was to describe a treatment method for a patient with maxillary retrognathia and Class III skeletal discrepancy using mandibular and maxillary skeletal anchorage with intermaxillary elastics. Case report: A 13-year-old boy with maxillary retrognathia and mandibular prognathism was treated using bilateral miniplates. Two miniplates were inserted in the mandibular canine area and two other miniplates were placed in the infrazygomatic crests of the maxilla. Class III intermaxillary elastics were used between the miniplates. Results: After eight months of orthopedic therapy, ANB angle increased by 4.1 degrees and ideal overjet and overbite were achieved. Mandibular plane angle was increased by 2.1 degrees and the palatal plane was rotated counterclockwise by 4.8 degrees. Conclusion: This case showed that the skeletal anchorage treatment method may be a viable option for treating patients with Class III skeletal malocclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document