4.3 Article

Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: A controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [K23 DE017727, R03 DE018962, R01 DE005215] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: In this cephalometric investigation, we analyzed the treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) with miniplates in the maxilla and mandible connected by Class III elastics in patients with Class III malocclusion. Methods: The treated sample consisted of 21 Class III patients consecutively treated with the BAMP protocol before the pubertal growth spurt (mean age, 11.10 +/- 1.8 years) and reevaluated after BAMP therapy, about 1 year later. The treated group was compared with a matched control group of 18 untreated Class III subjects. Significant differences between the treated and control groups were assessed with independent-sample t tests (P < 0.05). Results: Sagittal measurements of the maxilla showed highly significant improvements during active treatment (about 4 mm more than the untreated controls), with significant protraction effects at orbitale and pterygomaxillare. Significant improvements of overjet and molar relationship were recorded, as well as in the mandibular skeletal measures at Point B and pogonion. Vertical skeletal changes and modifications in incisor inclination were negligible, except for a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in the treated group. Significant soft-tissue changes reflected the underlying skeletal modifications. Conclusions: Compared with growth of the untreated Class III subjects, the BAMP protocol induced an average increment on skeletal and soft-tissue advancement of maxillary structures of about 4 mm, and favorable mandibular changes exceeded 2 mm. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138:577-81)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available