These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Mandibular cervical headgear vs rapid maxillary expander and facemask for orthopedic treatment of Class III malocclusion.
    Author: Baccetti T, Rey D, Angel D, Oberti G, McNamara JA.
    Journal: Angle Orthod; 2007 Jul; 77(4):619-24. PubMed ID: 17605494.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the rapid maxillary expander and facemask (RME/ FM) and mandibular cervical headgear (MCH) protocols when followed by fixed appliances and evaluated at a postpubertal observation in patients with dentoskeletal Class III malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample treated with the RME/FM followed by fixed appliances included 32 patients (12 boys and 20 girls). The sample treated with the MCH followed by fixed appliances included 26 patients (eight boys and 18 girls). Cephalometric analysis was performed at T(1) (before treatment) and T(2) (after the first phase of orthopedic therapy and the second phase of fixed appliances). T(1)-T(2) changes were evaluated by means of t-tests. RESULTS: Midfacial length, mandibular length, and the sagittal position of the chin all showed significantly smaller increases in the MCH group than in the RME/FM group. The amount of increase in the overjet was also significantly smaller in the MCH group, whereas the amount of molar correction was greater. The upper incisors were significantly less proclined and the lower incisors were significantly less retroclined in the MCH group when compared with the RME/FM group. CONCLUSIONS: RME/FM therapy appears to be indicated in Class III patients with a component of maxillary retrusion, whereas MCH therapy is preferable in patients with mandibular prognathism.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]