Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored Class III intermaxillary traction
- PMID: 22748987
- PMCID: PMC3553657
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.01.017
Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored Class III intermaxillary traction
Abstract
Introduction: Conventional treatment for young Class III patients involves extraoral devices designed to either protract the maxilla or restrain mandibular growth. The use of skeletal anchorage offers a promising alternative to obtain orthopedic results with fewer dental compensations. Our aim was to evaluate 3-dimensional changes in the mandibles and the glenoid fossae of Class III patients treated with bone-anchored maxillary protraction.
Methods: Twenty-five consecutive skeletal Class III patients between the ages of 9 and 13 years (mean age, 11.10 ± 1.1 year) were treated with Class III intermaxillary elastics and bilateral miniplates (2 in the infrazygomatic crests of the maxilla and 2 in the anterior mandible). The patients had cone-beam computed tomography images taken before initial loading and at the end of active treatment. Three-dimensional models were generated from these images, registered on the anterior cranial base, and analyzed by using color maps.
Results: Posterior displacement of the mandible at the end of treatment was observed in all subjects (posterior ramus: mean, 2.74 ± 1.36 mm; condyles: mean, 2.07 ± 1.16 mm; chin: mean, -0.13 ± 2.89 mm). Remodeling of the glenoid fossa at the anterior eminence (mean, 1.38 ± 1.03 mm) and bone resorption at the posterior wall (mean, -1.34 ± 0.6 mm) were observed in most patients.
Conclusions: This new treatment approach offers a promising alternative to restrain mandibular growth for Class III patients with a component of mandibular prognathism or to compensate for maxillary deficiency in patients with hypoplasia of the midface. Future studies with long-term follow-up and comparisons with facemask and chincup therapies are needed to better understand the treatment effects.
Copyright © 2012 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.
Figures
References
-
- Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Kersten G. Effects of protraction mechanics on the midface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:484–91. - PubMed
-
- Hata S, Itoh T, Nakagawa M, Kamagashira K, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto M, et al. Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91:305–11. - PubMed
-
- Chong YH, Ive JC, Årtun J. Changes following the use of protraction headgear for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996;66:351–62. - PubMed
-
- 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;123:306–20. - PubMed
-
- Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:583–92. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
