The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Maxillary protraction using skeletal anchorage and intermaxillary elastics in Skeletal Class III patients

  • Esenlik, Elcin (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Suleyman Demirel) ;
  • Aglarci, Cahide (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sifa) ;
  • Albayrak, Gayem Eroglu (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Suleyman Demirel) ;
  • Findik, Yavuz (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Suleyman Demirel)
  • Received : 2014.10.28
  • Accepted : 2014.12.24
  • Published : 2015.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The aim of this case report is to describe the treatment of a patient with skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary retrognathia using skeletal anchorage devices and intermaxillary elastics. Miniplates were inserted between the mandibular lateral incisor and canine teeth on both sides in a male patient aged 14 years 5 months. Self-drilling mini-implants (1.6 mm diameter, 10 mm length) were installed between the maxillary second premolar and molar teeth, and Class III elastics were used between the miniplates and miniscrews. On treatment completion, an increase in the projection of the maxilla relative to the cranial base (2.7 mm) and significant improvement of the facial profile were observed. Slight maxillary counterclockwise ($1^{\circ}$) and mandibular clockwise ($3.3^{\circ}$) rotations were also observed. Maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage and intermaxillary elastics was effective in correcting a case of Skeletal Class III malocclusion without dentoalveolar side effects.

Keywords

References

  1. Klempner LS. Early orthopedic Class III treatment with a modified tandem appliance. J Clin Orthod 2003;37:218-23.
  2. Chun YS, Jeong SG, Row J, Yang SJ. A new appliance for orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:705-11.
  3. Enacar A, Giray B, Pehlivanoglu M, Iplikcioglu H. Facemask therapy with rigid anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and severe oligodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:571-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00052-0
  4. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:440-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.011
  5. De Clerck HJ, Cornelis MA, Cevidanes LH, Heymann GC, Tulloch CJ. Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67:2123-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.007
  6. Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2010;80:799-806. https://doi.org/10.2319/111709-651.1
  7. Ge YS, Liu J, Chen L, Han JL, Guo X. Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1083-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/012912-76.1
  8. De Clerck EE, Swennen GR. Success rate of miniplate anchorage for bone anchored maxillary protraction.Angle Orthod 2011;81:1010-3. https://doi.org/10.2319/012311-47.1
  9. Koh SD, Chung DH. Comparison of skeletal anchored facemask and tooth-borne facemask according to vertical skeletal pattern and growth stage. Angle Orthod 2014;84:628-33. https://doi.org/10.2319/060313-421.1
  10. Cha BK, Choi DS, Ngan P, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Kim SM, Jang IS. Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139:99-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.025
  11. Ahn HW, Kim KW, Yang IH, Choi JY, Baek SH. Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82:935-41. https://doi.org/10.2319/010112-1.1
  12. Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod 2011;81:639-46. https://doi.org/10.2319/081010-473.1
  13. De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138:577-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037
  14. Sar C, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Uckan S, Yazici AC. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:636-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.039

Cited by

  1. Treatment of Class III with Facemask Therapy vol.2016, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6390637
  2. Primary Stability of Temporary Screws after Dentary and Orthopedic Forces under Static and Dynamic Load Cycles vol.7, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/met7030080
  3. Failure rates of miniscrews inserted in the maxillary tuberosity vol.24, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.5.046-051.oar
  4. Skeletal Class III malocclusion treatment using mandibular and maxillary skeletal anchorage and intermaxillary elastics: a case report vol.24, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.5.052-059.oar
  5. Maxillary protraction using customized mini-plates for anchorage in an adolescent girl with skeletal Class III malocclusion vol.50, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.5.346
  6. Skeletal open bite treated with clear aligners and miniscrews vol.159, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.07.020
  7. Using orthodontic elastic traction during the active period of distraction osteogenesis to increase the effective vertical extension of hemifacial microsomia patients: A multi-center randomized clinic vol.49, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2021.06.013