Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 3/2020

27.02.2020 | Original Article

Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction

verfasst von: Chunyan Liu, MD, PhD, Xing Qiao, MA, Shilong Zhang, MA, Wensheng Ma, MD, PhD, Wen Wang, MD, PhD, Xiaolei Ge, MA, Xiaoying Hu, MD, PhD, Wenjing Kang, MA, Haiyan Lu, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction in Class III malocclusions.

Patients and methods

The sample size consisted of 40 growing patients with Class III maxillary deficiency: 20 patients received maxillary protraction with a modified appliance and 20 patients with a banded appliance. Pre- and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of all subjects were obtained and analyzed. The paired t‑test and Wilcoxon ranks test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

The patients in the modified appliance group needed fewer appointments and shorter treatment time than those in the banded appliance group. The modified appliance was superior to the banded appliance with respect to simple structure, comfort, retention, and convenience in maintaining oral hygiene. The modified appliance was as effective as the banded appliance in correcting the Class III malocclusion. However, a greater increase was found in mandibular plane angle, anterior facial height, total facial height, mesialization of maxillary molars, and proclination of maxillary incisors in the banded appliance group compared with that in the modified appliance group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The newly developed modified appliance may be a promising approach in treating growing Class III patients with maxillary deficiency, which could decrease treatment time, increase treatment efficiency, and reduce anchorage loss.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Molina-Berlanga N, Llopis-Perez J, Flores-Mir C, Puigdollers A (2013) Lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and symphysis dimensions among class I and III malocclusion patients with different facial vertical skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 83:948–955PubMedCrossRef Molina-Berlanga N, Llopis-Perez J, Flores-Mir C, Puigdollers A (2013) Lower incisor dentoalveolar compensation and symphysis dimensions among class I and III malocclusion patients with different facial vertical skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 83:948–955PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ellis EE, McNamara JA (1984) Components of adult Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 85:277–290CrossRef Ellis EE, McNamara JA (1984) Components of adult Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 85:277–290CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Hirose K, Hiyama S, Suzuki S, Kuroda T (2000) Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:56–62CrossRef Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Hirose K, Hiyama S, Suzuki S, Kuroda T (2000) Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:56–62CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A (2000) Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:549–559PubMedCrossRef Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A (2000) Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:549–559PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sar C, Arman-Özçirpici A, Uçkan S, Yazici AC (2011) Comparative evaluationof maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:636–649PubMedCrossRef Sar C, Arman-Özçirpici A, Uçkan S, Yazici AC (2011) Comparative evaluationof maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:636–649PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Elnagar MH, Elshourbagy E, Ghobashy S, Khedr M, Evans CA (2016) Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletallyanchored maxillary protraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150:751–762PubMedCrossRef Elnagar MH, Elshourbagy E, Ghobashy S, Khedr M, Evans CA (2016) Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletallyanchored maxillary protraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150:751–762PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Atalay Z, Tortop T (2010) Dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance. Eur J Orthod 32:655–661PubMedCrossRef Atalay Z, Tortop T (2010) Dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance. Eur J Orthod 32:655–661PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Ngan P, Cheung E, Wei SHY (2007) Comparison of protraction facemask response using banded and bonded expansion appliances as anchorage. Semin Orthod 13:175–185CrossRef Ngan P, Cheung E, Wei SHY (2007) Comparison of protraction facemask response using banded and bonded expansion appliances as anchorage. Semin Orthod 13:175–185CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Shrestha S, Sharma AK, Lamichhane B (2016) Oral health status in patients with fixed orthodontic appliance with molar bands and bonded tubes. Orthod J Nepal 1:27–31CrossRef Shrestha S, Sharma AK, Lamichhane B (2016) Oral health status in patients with fixed orthodontic appliance with molar bands and bonded tubes. Orthod J Nepal 1:27–31CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S (2015) Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vsexpansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148:641–651PubMedCrossRef Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S (2015) Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vsexpansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148:641–651PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang YC, Chang PMS, Liou EJW (2009) Opening of circumaxillary sutures by alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Angle Orthod 79:230–234PubMedCrossRef Wang YC, Chang PMS, Liou EJW (2009) Opening of circumaxillary sutures by alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Angle Orthod 79:230–234PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Tortop T, Keykubat A, Yukse S (2007) Facemask therapy with and without expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:467–474PubMedCrossRef Tortop T, Keykubat A, Yukse S (2007) Facemask therapy with and without expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:467–474PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Vaugh GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK (2005) The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:299–309CrossRef Vaugh GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK (2005) The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:299–309CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoshida I, Shoji T, Mizoguchi I (2007) Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies. Eur J Orthod 29:126–133PubMedCrossRef Yoshida I, Shoji T, Mizoguchi I (2007) Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies. Eur J Orthod 29:126–133PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Cozza P, Marino A, Mucedero M (2004) An orthopaedic approach to the treatment of class III malocclusions in the early mixed dentition. Eur J Orthod 26:191–199PubMedCrossRef Cozza P, Marino A, Mucedero M (2004) An orthopaedic approach to the treatment of class III malocclusions in the early mixed dentition. Eur J Orthod 26:191–199PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO (2008) Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:440–449PubMedCrossRef Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO (2008) Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:440–449PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kilic N, Catal G, Kiki A, Oktay H (2010) Soft tissue profile changes following maxillary protraction in class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 32:419–424PubMedCrossRef Kilic N, Catal G, Kiki A, Oktay H (2010) Soft tissue profile changes following maxillary protraction in class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 32:419–424PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Mouakeh M (2001) Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial pattern of Syrian children with class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 119:640–649PubMedCrossRef Mouakeh M (2001) Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial pattern of Syrian children with class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 119:640–649PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction
verfasst von
Chunyan Liu, MD, PhD
Xing Qiao, MA
Shilong Zhang, MA
Wensheng Ma, MD, PhD
Wen Wang, MD, PhD
Xiaolei Ge, MA
Xiaoying Hu, MD, PhD
Wenjing Kang, MA
Haiyan Lu, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum
27.02.2020
Verlag
Springer Medizin
Erschienen in
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00214-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 3/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.