A retrospective comparison of two protocols for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion in prepubertal children: hybrid hyrax expander with mandibular miniplates and rapid maxillary expansion with face mask.

Autor: Tarraf NE; Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. noureldintarraf@hotmail.com., Dalci O; Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Dalci K; Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Altug AT; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey., Darendeliler MA; Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Progress in orthodontics [Prog Orthod] 2023 Jan 23; Vol. 24 (1), pp. 3. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jan 23.
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-022-00446-z
Abstrakt: Background: This study compared the skeletal and dental effects of a hybrid maxillary expander with mandibular miniplates (HE-MP) and Class III elastics to conventional tooth-borne rapid maxillary expander and face mask (RME-FM) in skeletal Class III treatment.
Methods: This retrospective study included 36 skeletal Class III patients. Eighteen patients (mean age 10.24 ± 1.31 years) were treated with a hybrid expander, two mandibular L-shaped miniplates and full-time Class III elastics (HE-MP group). Their results were compared to a group of patients treated with conventional RME-FM (n = 18; mean age 10.56 ± 1.41 year). Radiographs were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2). All patients were in cervical maturation stages CS1-CS3 at T1. The measured outcomes were the changes in sagittal and vertical skeletal and dental cephalometric measurements.
Results: Treatment time was approximately 15.5 ± 2.8 months with the HE-MP and 11.85 ± 3.41 months for the RME-FM. The Class III malocclusion was corrected in both groups with significant changes. The maxilla advanced more in the HE-MP group, with an increase in SNA of 4.26° ± 2.15° compared to 1.14 ± 0.93 in the RME-FM group (p < 0.001). The effect on the mandible was similar in both groups, while the overall skeletal change was significantly greater with HE-MP, with an increase in the ANB of 5.25° ± 2.03° and a Wits appraisal increase of 6.03 ± 3.13 mm, as opposed to 2.04° ± 1.07° and 2.94 ± 1.75 mm with the RME-FM (p < 0.001). Dental changes were significantly higher with RME-FM, with an increase in incisor inclination (U1-SN) of 5.02° ± 3.93° (p < 0.001), with no significant changes in the HE-MP group. The mandibular incisors retroclined by 5.29° ± 3.57° at L1-MP with the RME-FM, while they advanced slightly with the HE-MP by 2.87° ± 5.37° (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The use of skeletal anchorage for maxillary expansion and protraction significantly increases skeletal effects and reduces dental side effects compared to tooth-borne maxillary expansion and protraction. These results need to be investigated in the long term.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: