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: Treatment effects of maxillary protraction with palatal plates vs conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.
    Author: Lee YS, Park JH, Kim J, Lee NK, Kim Y, Kook YA.
    Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Oct; 162(4):520-528. PubMed ID: 35933257.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Evaluate the treatment effects of maxillary protraction using palatal plates and compare them to those with conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion. METHODS: Forty patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of anchorage used: group 1 (n = 20; mean age, 10.5 ± 1.6 years; palatal plates) and group 2 (n = 20; mean age, 10.0 ± 1.2 years; tooth-borne appliances). Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after maxillary protraction. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables were measured. For statistical analysis, paired and independent t tests were performed. RESULTS: Group 1 showed maxilla advancement by 2.3 ± 1.0 mm compared with group 2 by 0.9 ± 0.6 mm, and group 2 indicated clockwise rotation of the mandible, but there was no such clockwise rotation in group 1 (P <0.001). Group 1 had a less lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than group 2 (IMPA, -1.0 ± 3.8° vs -3.8 ± 2.8°; P <0.05). There was no difference in soft-tissue changes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A facemask with palatal plate induced maxillary advancement with less mandibular clockwise rotation and dental movement than conventional tooth-borne anchorage. This modality can be used efficiently for maxillary protraction in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]