Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Sep;80(5):799-806.
doi: 10.2319/111709-651.1.

Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion

Lucia Cevidanes  1 , Tiziano Baccetti, Lorenzo Franchi, James A McNamara Jr, Hugo De Clerck
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion

Lucia Cevidanes et al. Angle Orthod. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the active treatment effects for maxillary advancement induced by bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) and the active treatment effects for face mask in association with rapid maxillary expansion (RME/FM).

Materials and methods: This is a study on consecutively treated patients. The changes in dentoskeletal cephalometric variables from start of treatment (T1) to end of active treatment (T2) with an average T1-T2 interval of about 1 year were contrasted in a BAMP sample of 21 subjects with a RME/FM sample of 34 patients. All subjects were prepubertal at T1. Statistical comparison was performed with t-tests for independent samples.

Results: The BAMP protocol produced significantly larger maxillary advancement than the RME/FM therapy (with a difference of 2 mm to 3 mm). Mandibular sagittal changes were similar, while vertical changes were better controlled with BAMP. The sagittal intermaxillary relationships improved 2.5 mm more in the BAMP patients. Additional favorable outcomes of BAMP treatment were the lack of clockwise rotation of the mandible as well as a lack of retroclination of the lower incisors.

Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. The BAMP protocol produced significantly larger maxillary advancement than the RME/FM therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Synthetic lateral cephalogram generated from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Class III correction achieved with the bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) orthopedic protocol.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cephalometric measures. (A) Linear measures. (B) Angular measures.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Initial and final cephalograms of 6 of the 21 BAMP patients evaluated in the study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jacobson A, Evans W. G, Preston C. B, Sadowsky P. L. Mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod. 1974;66:140–171. - PubMed
    1. Guyer E. C, Ellis E. E, III, McNamara J. A, Jr, Behrents R. G. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod. 1986;56:7–30. - PubMed
    1. Kerr W. J, TenHave T. R. Mandibular position in Class III malocclusion. Br J Orthod. 1988;15:241–245. - PubMed
    1. Battagel J. M. The aetiological factors in Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:347–370. - PubMed
    1. De Toffol L, Pavoni C, Baccetti T, Franchl L, Cozza P. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:561–573. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources