Miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction in growing Class III patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-180
Author(s):  
Felicia Miranda ◽  
José Carlos da Cunha Bastos ◽  
Alexandre Magno dos Santos ◽  
Luiz Sergio Vieira ◽  
Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Option ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Good Treatment ◽  
Anterior Region ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Skeletal Effects ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Good Treatment Option

The aim of this article is to report a case series of a miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction therapy (MAMP). Two male patients presenting with Class III malocclusion were included in this report. The treatment consisted of a hybrid expander and two miniscrews at the anterior region of the mandible anchoring Class III elastics for maxillary protraction. Effective maxillary length, ANB angle and Wits appraisal increased after treatment. Slight dental effects were observed. MAMP therapy produced substantial skeletal effects and might be a good treatment option for Class III growing patients.

scholarly journals Treatment of Class III with Facemask Therapy

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snigdha Pattanaik ◽  
Sumita Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Young Patient ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Permanent Dentition ◽  
Mixed Dentition ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Skeletal Effects ◽  
Environmental Causes ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible

Class III malocclusion is one of the most difficult problems to treat in the mixed dentition. It has a multifactorial etiology involving both genetic and environmental causes. The dental and skeletal effects of maxillary protraction with a facemask are well documented in several studies. Although treatment in the late mixed or early permanent dentition can be successful, results are generally better in the deciduous or early mixed dentition. The following case shows early treatment of a young patient with severe sagittal and transverse discrepancy of the maxilla and mandible, using a facemask.

scholarly journals Management of maxillary deficiency in a growing child with facemask therapy and RME- A case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-170
Author(s):  
Pooja U ◽  
Naveen Aravind ◽  
Rajkumar S Alle ◽  
Lokesh NK ◽  
Mayank Trivedi
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class I ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Skeletal Effects ◽  
Environmental Causes ◽  
Maxillary Deficiency

Class III malocclusion is one of the most difficult problems to treat. It has a multifactorial etiology involving both genetic and environmental causes. The dental and skeletal effects of maxillary protraction with a facemask are well documented in several studies. Although incorporation of expansion appliance along with facemask therapy can improve correcting both sagittal and transverse discrepancy of maxilla. The following case shows early treatment of a 9 year old boy with maxillary deficiency using an expansion screw along with facemask. Facemask therapy was followed by fixed orthodontic treatment to settle the occlusion. Treatment was completed after 14 months with positive overjet, class I molar and canine relationship on right and left side.

scholarly journals Treatment of class III Malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy: A case report

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
M Mansuri ◽  
VP Singh
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Option ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Mandibular Growth ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Skeletal Pattern ◽  
Functional Appliances

The developing class III malocclusion is one of the most challenging problems for the practicing orthodontist to manage clinically. True class III malocclusion is rare in our region as compared to Class II and Class I malocclusion. With adults, orthognathic surgery and dental camouflage is the viable treatment option. A variety of treatment alternatives exists for patients in the developing stages of a Class III malocclusion. In the past much of the therapy has focused on restriction of mandibular growth with chin cups and functional appliances. This is based on the traditional thought that developing Class III malocclusions were the result of  prognathic mandible. Recently, however, there has been a growing awareness that the majority of patients with a developing Class III skeletal pattern exhibit a maxillary deficiency with a normal or only slightly prognathic mandible. Therefore, considerable attention has been given to early treatment using maxillary protraction therapy. Using facemask therapy in conjunction with maxillary expansion has been shown in clinical reports to be a successful and predictable treatment option. Treatment should be carried out as early as possible with the aim to prevent it from becoming severe. A case treated with biphasic therapy – orthopaedic appliance followed by fixed orthodontic treatment is presented here. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jmcjms.v2i1.11539 Janaki Medical College Journal of Medical Sciences (2014) Vol. 2 (1):59-63

Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Baccetti ◽  
Jean S. McGill ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi ◽  
James A. McNamara ◽  
Isabella Tollaro
Keyword(s):  
Early Treatment ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Expansion ◽  
Skeletal Effects

scholarly journals Optimal force for maxillary protraction facemask therapy in the early treatment of class III malocclusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 586-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Yepes ◽  
Paula Quintero ◽  
Zulma Vanessa Rueda ◽  
Andrea Pedroza
Keyword(s):  
Early Treatment ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Optimal Force

Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in Class III malocclusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Hoon Lee ◽  
Sang-Duck Koh ◽  
Dong-Hwa Chung ◽  
Jin-Woo Lee ◽  
Sang-Min Lee
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Residual Growth

Summary Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the results of skeletal anchorage (SAMP) and tooth- borne (TBMP) maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in growing skeletal Class III patients. Materials and methods Patients treated with maxillary protraction were selected and classified into two groups (SAMP: n = 19, mean age = 11.19 years; TBMP: n = 27, mean age = 11.21 years). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), after the maxillary protraction (T1), and after the fixed appliance treatment (T2) were analysed and all variables were statistically tested to find difference between the two groups. Results Compared to the TBMP, the SAMP showed significant forward growth of maxilla (Co-A point and SN-Orbitale) and improvement in intermaxillary relationship (ANB, AB to mandible plane, and APDI) after the overall treatment (T0–T2), with no significant sagittal changes in maxilla or mandible throughout the fixed appliance treatment (T1–T2). Limitations In maxillary protraction, effects of skeletal anchorage were retrospectively compared with those of dental anchorage, not with Class I or III control. Conclusions and implications After maxillary protraction, skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage did not cause significant differences in the residual growth of maxilla throughout the phase II treatment. Orthopaedic effects with skeletal anchorage showed appropriate stability in maxilla and intermaxillary relationship even after fixed appliance treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document