Evaluation of a modified maxillary protraction appliance for the treatment of patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion associated with crowding

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2024.02.013

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of a modified maxillary protraction appliance in patients of skeletal Class Ⅲ with crowding. METHODS: Forty patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion were divided into two groups, with 20 patients in each group. The experimental group had molar in a neutral or distal relationship and applied a modified maxillary protraction appliance, while the control group had molar mesial relationship and applied a conventional maxillary protraction appliance. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after treatment in both groups for comparison. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for data analysis. RESULTS: The angle measurements taken before and after treatment showed a significant increase in SNA, ANB, SN-MP and U4-SN(P<0.01), while SNB decreased(P<0.01) in both groups. SN-OL changes were statistically different before and after treatment in the experimental group(P<0.05). The sagittal measurements before and after treatment in both groups showed significant alterations in all(P<0.05) but the length of the maxillary arch in both groups. For vertical measurements, U1-PP, L1-MP, U4-SN, U6-SN, and ANS-ME all increased (P<0.05), while the changes of U4-PP and U6-PP in the two groups before and after treatment were statistically different(P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the experimental group had a significantly increased maxillary arch length, a more remote location at U6, and a less variable molar relationship after treatment(P<0.01). The two groups showed a variable amount of cephalometric measurements before and after treatment: the experimental group had a significant increase in maxillary arch length, a more remote position at U6, and a smaller change in molar relationship compared to the control group(P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The modified maxillary protraction appliance showed good results for maxillary protraction and pushing the molar distally in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ with crowding at neutral or distal molar relationship.

Key words: Skeletal Class Ⅲ, malocclusion, Modified maxillary protraction, Crowding, Molar distalization

CLC Number:

R783.5

LIU Ye, GE Xiao-lei, ZHANG Shi-long, QIN Yuan, HOU Yan, LU Hai-yan, MA Wen-sheng. Evaluation of a modified maxillary protraction appliance for the treatment of patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion associated with crowding[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2024, 33(2): 180-185.

References

[1] Lin M, Xie C, Yang H, et al.Prevalence of malocclusion in Chinese schoolchildren from 1991 to 2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Paediatr Dent, 2020, 30(2): 144-155.
[2] 唐汝萍,刘帅,赵震锦,等.骨性Ⅲ类下颌偏斜患者颞下颌关节形态位置及上颌骨特征的三维评估[J].上海口腔医学, 2023, 32(1): 91-96.
[3] Maino G, Turci Y, Arreghini A, et al.Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybridrapid palatal expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal Class Ⅲ patients[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2018, 153(2): 262-268.
[4] Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, et al.Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2015, 19(6): 1181-1192.
[5] 胡骁颖, 刘春艳, 王雯, 等. 上颌快速扩弓和骨龄对上颌前方牵引疗效的硬组织影响[J].实用口腔医学杂志, 2018, 34(6): 765-769.
[6] 张世珍, 赖文莉. 骨性Ⅲ类错畸形上颌骨前牵引方法及辅助扩弓的研究进展[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2021, 48(3): 354-361.
[7] Wang JW, Wang YX, Yang YY, et al.Clinical effects of maxillary protraction in different stages of dentition in skeletal class Ⅲ children: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2022, 25(4): 549-561.
[8] Wu Z, Zhang X, Li Z, et al.A Bayesian network meta-analysis of orthopaedic treatment in Class Ⅲ malocclusion: maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage or a rapid maxillary expander[J]. Orthod Craniofacial Res, 2020, 23(1): 1-15.
[9] Buyukcavus MH, Kale B, Aydemir B.Comparison of treatment effects of different maxillary protraction methods in skeletal Class Ⅲ patients[J]. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2020, 23(4): 445-454.
[10] 任超超, 白玉兴. 上颌前方牵引的疗效及其长期稳定性[J].中华口腔医学杂志, 2018, 53(10): 649-652.
[11] Cambiano AO, Janson G, Fuziy A, et al.Changes consequent to maxillary molar distalization with the bone-anchored pendulum appliance[J]. J Orthod Sci, 2017, 6(4): 141-146.
[12] Serafin M, Fastuca R, Castellani E, et al.Occlusal plane changes after molar distalization with a pendulum appliance in growing patients with Class Ⅱ malocclusion: a retrospective cephalometric study[J]. Turk J Orthod, 2021, 34(1): 10-17.
[13] Kinzinger GSM, Hourfar J, Lisson JA.Efficiency of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2021, 82(6): 391-402.
[14] 马文盛, 卢海燕, 董福生, 等. 早期骨性Ⅲ类错前方牵引矫治中扩弓效果的比较[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2009, 27(2): 178-182.
[15] 陈雅莉, 周源, 胡江天. 接受隐形矫治器、钟摆矫治器矫治的安氏Ⅱ类牙性错畸形患者牙列垂直向变化对比观察[J]. 山东医药, 2020, 60(12): 24-27.
[16] Liu CY, Qiao X, Zhang SL, et al.Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2020, 81(3): 172-182.