Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131(1):7.e9-19AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was 3-fold: (1) to compare the effects and long-term stability of protraction facemask treatment with untreated Class III controls, (2) to compare the long-term stability of early protraction facemask treatment with later surgical maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy, and (3) to determine whether early intervention with protraction facemask is an effective treatment modality or whether surgical treatment after cessation of growth should be advocated.

MATERIALS

The sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated white patients with Class III malocclusions characterized by maxillary deficiency. The protraction sample consisted of 17 children (8 boys, 9 girls). The surgical sample consisted of 17 adults (10 men, 7 women). The protraction group was also compared with a control group of white subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of functional appliance treatment or 2 weeks postsurgery), and T3 (7 years 6 months postprotraction or 1 year 5 months postsurgery). Means and standard deviations were calculated for descriptive cephalometric measurements. ANOVA was used to assess the differences between and within the protraction and surgery groups at T1, T2, and T3. The Tukey studentized range test was performed to determine the source of the difference. In addition, paired t tests were used to compare the differences between the protraction group and the matched controls as well as between the surgery group and the matched controls.

RESULTS

In the protraction group, there was continued favorable growth of the maxilla, even after the removal of the protraction facemask. From T2 to T3, the maxilla continued to move anteriorly in the protraction patients more so than in the control groups, which had decreases in the intermaxillary measurements (ANB angle and Wits appraisal) over time. The surgical group remained stable from T2 to T3 in all measurements studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The most striking findings of this study were the general similarity between the protraction and the surgical groups at T3 and the overall stability of both treatment modalities over time.

Authors+Show Affiliations

School of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Mich, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17208098

Citation

Pangrazio-Kulbersh, Valmy, et al. "Long-term Stability of Class III Treatment: Rapid Palatal Expansion and Protraction Facemask Vs LeFort I Maxillary Advancement Osteotomy." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 131, no. 1, 2007, pp. 7.e9-19.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Janisse FN, et al. Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(1):7.e9-19.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh, V., Berger, J. L., Janisse, F. N., & Bayirli, B. (2007). Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 131(1), pp. 7.e9-19.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, et al. Long-term Stability of Class III Treatment: Rapid Palatal Expansion and Protraction Facemask Vs LeFort I Maxillary Advancement Osteotomy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(1):7.e9-19. PubMed PMID: 17208098.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy. AU - Pangrazio-Kulbersh,Valmy, AU - Berger,Jeffrey L, AU - Janisse,Francis N, AU - Bayirli,Burcu, PY - 2005/08/23/received PY - 2006/04/21/revised PY - 2006/04/28/accepted PY - 2007/1/9/pubmed PY - 2007/1/24/medline PY - 2007/1/9/entrez SP - 7.e9 EP - 19 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 131 IS - 1 N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was 3-fold: (1) to compare the effects and long-term stability of protraction facemask treatment with untreated Class III controls, (2) to compare the long-term stability of early protraction facemask treatment with later surgical maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy, and (3) to determine whether early intervention with protraction facemask is an effective treatment modality or whether surgical treatment after cessation of growth should be advocated. MATERIALS: The sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated white patients with Class III malocclusions characterized by maxillary deficiency. The protraction sample consisted of 17 children (8 boys, 9 girls). The surgical sample consisted of 17 adults (10 men, 7 women). The protraction group was also compared with a control group of white subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of functional appliance treatment or 2 weeks postsurgery), and T3 (7 years 6 months postprotraction or 1 year 5 months postsurgery). Means and standard deviations were calculated for descriptive cephalometric measurements. ANOVA was used to assess the differences between and within the protraction and surgery groups at T1, T2, and T3. The Tukey studentized range test was performed to determine the source of the difference. In addition, paired t tests were used to compare the differences between the protraction group and the matched controls as well as between the surgery group and the matched controls. RESULTS: In the protraction group, there was continued favorable growth of the maxilla, even after the removal of the protraction facemask. From T2 to T3, the maxilla continued to move anteriorly in the protraction patients more so than in the control groups, which had decreases in the intermaxillary measurements (ANB angle and Wits appraisal) over time. The surgical group remained stable from T2 to T3 in all measurements studied. CONCLUSIONS: The most striking findings of this study were the general similarity between the protraction and the surgical groups at T3 and the overall stability of both treatment modalities over time. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17208098/Long_term_stability_of_Class_III_treatment:_rapid_palatal_expansion_and_protraction_facemask_vs_LeFort_I_maxillary_advancement_osteotomy_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(06)01177-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -