Browse > Article

The effects of maxillary protraction appliance (MPA) depending on vertical facial patterns  

Ryu, Young-Kyu (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry Yonsei University)
Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry Yonsei University)
Oh, Chang-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry Yonsei University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.32, no.6, 2002 , pp. 413-424 More about this Journal
Abstract
Preadolescent children with deficient maxillae are suitable candidates for the maxillary protraction appliance(MPA). The theoretical effect of the MPA is protraction or anterior displacement of the maxilla. However, it is known that complex effects such as anterior displacement of the maxillary teeth, downward and backward rotation of the mandible, linguoversion of the mandibular anterior incisors, are known to play a role in improving the Cl III malocclusion. There have been much studies with regard to maxillary protraction, but the different effects of MPAs depending on the vertical facial pattern are not known precisely. This study was based on 67 patients (31 males, 36 females) aged from 6 years 6 months to 13 years 3months, who visited the Dept. of Orthodontics at Yonsei Univ., Dental Hospital and diagnosed as skeletal Class III with maxillary deficiency. They were divided into 3 groups (low, average, high angle groups) depending on genial angle and the SNMP (Go-Gn) angle, respectively. Pretreatment and post-treatment lateral cephalograms were used to compare the effects of MPA and the following conclusions were obtained: 1) A significantly large amount of backward movement of the B point was observed in patients with a low SNMP angle. Those with a high SNMP angle had significant forward movement at A point. 2) The patients with low genial angle had the least forward movement at the A point, and those with a high angle had more forward movement. 3) In comparing the arcTan of the A point, the high angle group showed more horizontal movement while the low angle group showed more vertical movement. 4) There was no significance between the treatment duration of the SNMP and the Genial angle groups.
Keywords
vertical facial patterns; facemask; maxillary protraction;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 HS Baik. Clinical results of maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995: 108 : 583-592   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Jackson GW, Kokich VG, Shapiro PA. Experimental and postexperimental response to anteriorly directed extraoral force in young Macaca nemsestrina. Am J Orthod 1979 : 75 : 318-333   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Shanker S. Salazar RW, Taliercio EW. et al. Cephalometric A point changes during and after maxillary protraction and expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996 : 110 : 423-430   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as rela-ted to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964 : 34 : 75-93
5 Bjrk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible, A synthesis of longitudinal studies over a period of 25years. Eur J Orthod 1984: 6 : 1-14
6 Issacson JR, Issacson RJ, Spiedel TM, Worms FW, Extreme variation in vertical facial growth and associated variations in skeletal and dental relations Angle Orthod 1971 : 41 : 219-29
7 Moller E. The chewing apparatus. An electromyographic study of the action of the muscles of mastication and Its correlation to facial morphology, Acta Physiol Scand 69 : Supp. 1966 : 280 : 1-229
8 HS Baik. Clinical effects and stability of the maxillary protraction usion the lateral cephalogram in Korea. Korean J Orthod. 1992 : 22: 509-26
9 William R. Proffit. Contemporary orthodontics. St Louis: Mosby, 2000
10 Oppenheim A. A possibility for physiologic orthodontic movement, Am. J. Orthod., 1944 : 30 : 345-368   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Sassouni V, Nanda S, Analysis of dentofacial vertical proportions. Am J Orthod 1964 : 50 : 801-823   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Ngan PW, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH, Treatment response and long-term dentotacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin Orthod 1997: 3 : 255-64   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Schendel SA, Eisenfeld J, Bell WH, Epker BN, The long face syndrome:vertical maxillary excess. Am J Orthod 1976 : 70 : 398-408   DOI   ScienceOn
14 JH Kim, Viana MA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA, The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy:a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999 : 115: 675-85   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Sugawara J, Asano T, Endo N, Mitani H. Long term effects of chin cap therapy on skeletal profile in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990: 98 : 127-33   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Ingervall B, Thuer U, Kuster R, lack of correlation between mouth breathing andbiteforce. Eur J Orthod 1989 : 11 : 43-46   DOI
17 Graber LW. Chincup therapy for mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977: 72: 23-41   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Chong YH, Ive JC, Artun J. Changes following the use of pro-traction headgear for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1996 : 66 : 351-362
19 Irie M, Nakamura S. Orthopedic approach to severe skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1975: 67 : 377-392   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Ueda HM, Miyamoto K, Saiffuddin, Ishizuka Y, Tanne K. Masticatory muscle activity in children and adults with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000 : 118: 63-68   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Deguchi T, Kuroda T, Hunt NP, Graber TM, Long-term applica-tion of chincup force alters the morphology of the dolichofacial Class III mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999 : 116: 610-615   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Opdebeeck H, Bell WHo The short face symcrorne. Am J Orthod 1978 : 73 : 499-511   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Houston WJ, The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983: 83 : 382-90   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
24 Cozzani G. Extraoral traction and Class III treatment. Am J Orthod 1981 : 80 : 638-650   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Proffit WR, Fields HW. Occlusal forces In normal and long-face adults. J Dent Res 1983 : 62 : 571-4   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Ricketts RM. Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estrmate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957 : 27 : 14-37
27 Schudy FF. The vertical dimension of the human face. Houston: D. Armstrong Co. 1992
28 Suda N, Lshit-Suzu Kim, Hirose K, et al. Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction: Is the boneage useful to determine the treatment plan? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000 : 118: 5562
29 Kambara T. Dentofacial changes produced by extraoral forward force in Macaca irus. Am J Orthod 1977 : 71 : 249-277   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Saadia M, Torres E. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction in Class III patients in the primary, mixed and late mixed dentitions. Am J Orthod Dentolac Orthop 2000 : 117 : 669-680   DOI
31 Bjork A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation, Am J Orthod 1969 : 55 : 585-99   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
32 Siriwat PP, Jarabak JR. Malocclusion and facial morphology: Is there a relationship? Angle Orthod 1985 : 55 : 127-38
33 HS Baik, KH Kim, Y Park. The distribution and trends in malocclusion patients: a 10 year study of 2155 patients from YDSH. Korean J Orthod. 1995: 25: 87-100
34 Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997 : 112 : 292-299   DOI   ScienceOn