Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Nov; 150(5):751-762.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 protocols of bone-anchored maxillary protraction with an untreated control group.

METHODS

Thirty growing Class III subjects with maxillary deficiency in the late mixed or early permanent dentition were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 10), skeletally anchored facemasks were used with miniplates placed at the zygomatic buttress. In group 2 (n = 10), the patients were treated with Class III elastics extending from infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to symphyseal miniplates in the mandible. Group 3 (n = 10) was an untreated control group. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed.

RESULTS

The treatment periods were 8 and 8.9 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and the untreated control group was observed for 9.4 months. The maxilla moved forward significantly in groups 1 and 2 compared with the untreated control group (4.87 mm in group 1, 5.81 mm in group 2); overjet and maxillary incisor display were improved without proclination or mesialization of the maxillary teeth relative to the maxillary base. Soft tissue harmony demonstrated the great improvement. However, group 1 showed more opening rotation of the mandible and lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than did group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 skeletal anchorage protocols for maxillary protraction effectively resolved the severe maxillary deficiently in growing Class III patients. However, vertical changes and retroclination of the mandibular incisors were better controlled by Class III elastics extending from the infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to the symphyseal miniplates in the mandible (group 2).

Authors+Show Affiliations

Assistant lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; visiting scholar, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Electronic address: melnagar@uic.edu.Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.Professor and department head, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

27871701

Citation

Elnagar, Mohammed H., et al. "Comparative Evaluation of 2 Skeletally Anchored Maxillary Protraction Protocols." 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. 150, no. 5, 2016, pp. 751-762.
Elnagar MH, Elshourbagy E, Ghobashy S, et al. Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(5):751-762.
Elnagar, M. H., Elshourbagy, E., Ghobashy, S., Khedr, M., & Evans, C. A. (2016). Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 150(5), 751-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.025
Elnagar MH, et al. Comparative Evaluation of 2 Skeletally Anchored Maxillary Protraction Protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(5):751-762. PubMed PMID: 27871701.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols. AU - Elnagar,Mohammed H, AU - Elshourbagy,Eman, AU - Ghobashy,Safaa, AU - Khedr,Mohamed, AU - Evans,Carla A, PY - 2016/02/01/received PY - 2016/04/01/revised PY - 2016/04/01/accepted PY - 2016/11/23/entrez PY - 2016/11/23/pubmed PY - 2017/3/23/medline SP - 751 EP - 762 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 - 150 IS - 5 N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 protocols of bone-anchored maxillary protraction with an untreated control group. METHODS: Thirty growing Class III subjects with maxillary deficiency in the late mixed or early permanent dentition were included in the study. In group 1 (n = 10), skeletally anchored facemasks were used with miniplates placed at the zygomatic buttress. In group 2 (n = 10), the patients were treated with Class III elastics extending from infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to symphyseal miniplates in the mandible. Group 3 (n = 10) was an untreated control group. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed. RESULTS: The treatment periods were 8 and 8.9 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and the untreated control group was observed for 9.4 months. The maxilla moved forward significantly in groups 1 and 2 compared with the untreated control group (4.87 mm in group 1, 5.81 mm in group 2); overjet and maxillary incisor display were improved without proclination or mesialization of the maxillary teeth relative to the maxillary base. Soft tissue harmony demonstrated the great improvement. However, group 1 showed more opening rotation of the mandible and lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than did group 2. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 skeletal anchorage protocols for maxillary protraction effectively resolved the severe maxillary deficiently in growing Class III patients. However, vertical changes and retroclination of the mandibular incisors were better controlled by Class III elastics extending from the infrazygomatic miniplates in the maxilla to the symphyseal miniplates in the mandible (group 2). SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/27871701/Comparative_evaluation_of_2_skeletally_anchored_maxillary_protraction_protocols_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(16)30394-8 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -