دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Comparative assessment of facemask therapy with and without skeletal anchorage in growing Class III patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP): A single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Comparative assessment of facemask therapy with and without skeletal anchorage in growing Class III patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP): A single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial.
المؤلفون: Dutta S; Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Kadrabad, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India., Batra P; Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Manav Rachna Dental College, Faridabad, Haryana, India., Raghavan S; Private Practice, Delhi NCR, India., Sharma K; Private Practice, Delhi NCR, India., Talwar A; Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Manav Rachna Dental College, Faridabad, Haryana, India., Arora A; Private Practice, Delhi NCR, India., Srivastava A; Private Practice, Delhi NCR, India.
المصدر: Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry [Spec Care Dentist] 2024 Mar-Apr; Vol. 44 (2), pp. 491-501. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 21.
نوع المنشور: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: American Dental Association Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8103755 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1754-4505 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 02751879 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Spec Care Dentist
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: [Chicago : American Dental Association, c1981-
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Cleft Lip*/therapy , Cleft Palate*/therapy, Humans ; Cephalometry ; Extraoral Traction Appliances ; Masks ; Maxilla ; Prospective Studies ; Child ; Adolescent
مستخلص: Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the maxillary protraction effect of facemask therapy with and without skeletal anchorage in growing Class III patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).
Materials and Methods: Thirty patients (aged 9-13 years) with UCLP having a GOSLON score 3 were selected for this prospective clinical study. The patients were allocated into two groups using computer generated random number table. Group I (facemask therapy along with two I shaped miniplates, FM + MP) and Group II (facemask mask along with tooth-anchored appliance, FM). Skeletal and dental parameters were evaluated on pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms and pharyngeal airway on cone-beam computed tomography systems (CBCT) for assessment of the treatment changes.
Results: Both methods proved to be effective with statistically significant improvements in skeletal and dental parameters (p < .05). Skeletal parameters (e.g., SNA, convexity-point A, ANB) with the FM + MP group showed greater change compared to those with FM group (SNA, 2.56°; convexity-point A, 1.22°; ANB, 0.35°). Significant proclination of maxillary incisors was observed in the FM group as compared to FM + MP group (U1 to NA, 5.4°; 3.37 mm). A statistically significant increase in pharyngeal airway volume was noted in both groups (p < .05).
Conclusion: While both therapies are effective in protracting the maxilla in growing patients with UCLP, the FM + MP allows for a greater skeletal correction, minimizing the dental side effects seen with FM therapy alone. Thus, FM + MP appears to be a promising adjunct in reducing the severity of Class III skeletal correction needed in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP).
(© 2023 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
References: Khandeparker P, Khandeparker R, Kamat S, Shetye O. Cleft maxillary hypoplasia: a review of treatment options. Medico Res Chron. 2017;4(05):501-507.
Westwood PV, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Sarver DM. Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(3):306-320.
Ngan P, HaggU YiuC, Merwin D, Wei SH. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:38-49.
Ngan PW, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin Orthod. 1997;3(4):255-264.
Macdonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK. Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(1):13-24.
Turley P. Treatment of the class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin Orthod. 2007:143-157.
Yatabe M, Garib DG, Souza Faco RA, et al. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction therapy in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: 3-dimensional assessment of maxillary effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;152(3):327-335.
Baek S-H, Kim K-W, Choi J-Y. New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):783-791.
Sarver DM, Johnston MW. Skeletal changes in vertical and anterior displacement of the maxilla with bonded rapid palatal expansion appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:462-466.
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(1):99-112.
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(4):303-307.
Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(5):799-806.
Cha BK, Lee NK, Choi DS. Maxillary protraction treatment of skeletal Class III children using miniplate anchorage. Korean J Orthod. 2016;37(1):73-84.
Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133(3):440-449.
Kircelli BH, Pektaş ZO, Uçkan S. Orthopedic protraction with skeletal anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and hypodontia. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(1):156-163.
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(10):2123-2129.
Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:26.
Mars M, Plint DA, Houston WJ, Bergland O, Semb G. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(4):314-322.
Liou EJW, Tsai WC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(2):121-127.
Baccetti T, McGill JS, Franchi L, McNamara JA, Tollaro I. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(3):333-343.
Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:17.
Johnston LE. Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: an integrated analysis of change. Br J Orthod. 1996;23(2):93-102.
Levy-Bercowski D, DeLeon E, Stockstill JW, Yu JC. Orthognathic cleft-surgical/orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod. 2011;17(3):197-206.
Sar C, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Uçkan S, Yazıcı AC. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(5):636-649.
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(5):935-941.
Tindlund RS. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate before age 10 years. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 1993;30(2):208-221.
Ağlarcı C, Esenlik E, Fındık Y. Comparison of short-term effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(3):313-323.
Tindlund RS, Rygh P. Maxillary protraction: different effects on facial morphology in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J. 1993;30(2):208-221.
Buschang PH, Porter C, Genecov E, Genecov D, Sayler KE. Face mask therapy of preadolescents with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(2):145-150.
Salazar L, Piedrahita M, Álvarez E, Santamaría A, Manrique R, Oliveira Junior OB. Effect of face mask therapy on mandibular rotation considering initial and final vertical growth pattern: a longitudinal study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019;5(4):343-349.
Lee HJ, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK. Comparison of facemask therapy effects using skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(3):307-314.
El H, Palomo JM. Three-dimensional evaluation of upper airway following rapid maxillary expansion: a CBCT study. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(2):265-273.
Baccetti T, Franchi L, Mucedero M, Cozza P. Treatment and post-treatment effects of facemask therapy on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):346-350.
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(4):628-633.
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(4):639-646.
Clemente R, Contardo L, Greco C, Di Lenarda R, Perinetti G. Class III treatment with skeletal and dental anchorage: a review of comparative effects. Bio Med Res Int. 2018;2018:7946019.
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: cleft lip; fixed orthodontic appliance; maxilla; orthodontic anchorage proceduresm; skeletal anchorage
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230421 Date Completed: 20240315 Latest Revision: 20240531
رمز التحديث: 20240601
DOI: 10.1111/scd.12869
PMID: 37084175
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1754-4505
DOI:10.1111/scd.12869