The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Zygomatic miniplates for skeletal anchorage in orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion: A controlled clinical trial

  • Bozkaya, Erdal (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University) ;
  • Yuksel, Alime Sema (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University) ;
  • Bozkaya, Suleyman (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University)
  • Received : 2016.04.15
  • Accepted : 2016.07.13
  • Published : 2017.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of facemask therapy, which was anchored from the zygomatic buttresses of the maxilla by using two miniplates, in skeletal Class III patients with maxillary deficiency. Methods: Eighteen skeletal Class III patients (10 girls and 8 boys; mean age, $11.4{\pm}1.28$ years) with maxillary deficiency were treated using miniplate-anchored facemasks, and their outcomes were compared with those of a Class III control group (9 girls and 9 boys; mean age, $10.6{\pm}1.12$ years). Two I-shaped miniplates were placed on the right and left zygomatic buttresses of the maxilla, and a facemask was applied with a 400 g force per side. Intragroup comparisons were made using the Wilcoxon test, and intergroup comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U-test (p < 0.05). Results: In the treatment group, the maxilla moved 3.3 mm forward, the mandible showed posterior rotation by $1.5^{\circ}$, and the lower incisors were retroclined after treatment. These results were significantly different from those in the control group (p < 0.05). No significant anterior rotation of the palatal plane was observed after treatment. Moreover, changes in the sagittal positions of the maxillary incisors and molars were similar between the treatment and control groups. Conclusions: Skeletally anchored facemask therapy is an effective method for correcting Class III malocclusions, which also minimizes the undesired dental side effects of conventional methods in the maxilla.

Keywords

References

  1. Tortop T, Keykubat A, Yuksel S. Facemask therapy with and without expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:467-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.047
  2. Gallagher RW, Miranda F, Buschang PH. Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:612-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70220-3
  3. Chen L, Chen R, Yang Y, Ji G, Shen G. The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability--a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:88-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq185
  4. Cha KS. Skeletal changes of maxillary protraction in patients exhibiting skeletal class III malocclusion: a comparison of three skeletal maturation groups. Angle Orthod 2003;73:26-35.
  5. Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:204-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70141-6
  6. Kokich VG, Shapiro PA, Oswald R, Koskinen-Moffett L, Clarren SK. Ankylosed teeth as abutments for maxillary protraction: a case report. Am J Orthod 1985;88:303-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90129-0
  7. Singer SL, Henry PJ, Rosenberg I. Osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to facemask therapy: a case report. Angle Orthod 2000;70:253-62.
  8. 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
  9. Hong H, Ngan P, Han G, Qi LG, Wei SH. Use of onplants as stable anchorage for facemask treatment: a case report. Angle Orthod 2005;75:453-60.
  10. 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
  11. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO, Uckan S. Orthopedic protraction with skeletal anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and hypodontia. Angle Orthod 2006;76:156-63.
  12. Baek SH, Kim KW, Choi JY. New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage. Angle Orthod 2010;80:783-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/073009-435.1
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Lee NK, Yang IH, Baek SH. The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:846-52. https://doi.org/10.2319/090811-584.1
  16. Cha BK, Ngan PW. Skeletal anchorage for orthopedic correction of growing class III patients. Semin Orthod 2011;17:124-37. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.12.005
  17. Cha BK, Lee NK, Choi DS. Maxillary protraction treatment of skeletal Class III children using miniplate anchorage. Korean J Orthod 2007;37:73-84.
  18. 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
  19. Saadia M, Torres E. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction with expansion in class III patients in the primary, mixed, and late mixed dentitions: a longitudinal retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:669-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70176-4
  20. Zhou YH, Ding P, Lin Y, Qiu LX. Facemask therapy with miniplate implant anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007;120:1372-5.
  21. Coscia G, Addabbo F, Peluso V, D'Ambrosio E. Use of intermaxillary forces in early treatment of maxillary deficient class III patients: results of a case series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:e350-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2012.01.019
  22. Billiet T, de Pauw G, Dermaut L. Location of the centre of resistance of the upper dentition and the nasomaxillary complex. An experimental study. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:263-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.3.263
  23. Lee HS, Choi HM, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK. Bone thickness of the infrazygomatic crest area in skeletal Class III growing patients: A computed tomographic study. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43:261-6. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2013.43.4.261
  24. De Clerck H, Geerinckx V, Siciliano S. The zygoma anchorage system. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:455-9.
  25. Ishida T, Yoon HS, Ono T. Asymmetrical distalization of maxillary molars with zygomatic anchorage, improved superelastic nickel-titanium alloy wires, and open-coil springs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:583-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.028
  26. Arat M, Koklu A, Ozdiler E, Rubenduz M, Erdogan B. Craniofacial growth and skeletal maturation: a mixed longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:355-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.4.355
  27. Melsen B, Melsen F. The postnatal development of the palatomaxillary region studied on human autopsy material. Am J Orthod 1982;82:329-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90467-5
  28. Hickham JH. Maxillary protraction therapy: diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:102-13.
  29. Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Kersten G. Effects of protraction mechanics on the midface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:484-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70167-2
  30. Ishii H, Morita S, Takeuchi Y, Nakamura S. Treatment effect of combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in severe skeletal Class III cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:304-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90331-3

Cited by

  1. Effectiveness of Tongue Crib Combination Treating Severe Skeletal Angle Class III Malocclusion in Mixed Dentition vol.13, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1855
  2. A Bayesian network meta‐analysis of orthopaedic treatment in Class III malocclusion: Maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage or a rapid maxillary expander vol.23, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12339
  3. Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in Class III malocclusion vol.42, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz086
  4. Three-dimensional comparative evaluation of customized bone-anchored vs tooth-borne maxillary protraction in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion vol.160, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.034