Comparison of the short-term effects of facemask therapy preceded by conventional rapid maxillary expansion or by an alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol : A retrospective study.
Vergleich der kurzfristigen Auswirkungen einer Gesichtsmaskentherapie mit vorheriger konventioneller schneller Gaumennahtexpansion bzw. einem alternativen Protokoll für schnelle Gaumennahtexpansion und -konstriktion : Eine retrospektive Studie.
Circummaxillary sutures
Dentofacial orthopedics
Mandibular protrusion
Maxillary retrusion
Skeletal class III malocclusion
Journal
Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie
ISSN: 1615-6714
Titre abrégé: J Orofac Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9713484
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
07
12
2020
accepted:
16
01
2022
medline:
29
8
2023
pubmed:
9
3
2022
entrez:
8
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to compare the short-term effects of alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) with conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME) followed by facemask (FM) therapy. A total of 30 patients who had received facemask therapy after RME or Alt-RAMEC protocols were included in the study. The Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM groups were created to be well-matched regarding cervical vertebral maturation stage and sex. In the Alt-RAMEC group (10 males and 5 females, 10.99 ± 1.80 years), expansion screws were activated for a week (two turns/day), then deactivated in the following week (two turns/day). The activation-deactivation protocol continued for 6 or 7 weeks. In the RME/FM group (10 males and 5 females, 11.61 ± 1.20 years), screw activation was performed according to the patients' requirements. Lateral cephalograms which had been taken at the beginning of treatment and at the end of the facemask therapy were analyzed. Intragroup and intergroup differences were statistically analyzed. Both groups showed a significant sagittal advancement of the maxilla. However, the Alt-RAMEC/FM group showed statistically greater improvements than the RME/FM group for SNA (3.11 ± 1.79 vs. 1.45 ± 1.34, p = 0.008), ANB (4.29 ± 1.80 vs. 2.95 ± 1.19, p = 0.023), convexity (8.91 ± 4.29 vs. 5.61 ± 2.51, p = 0.016), and overjet (5.86 ± 2.29 vs. 4.61 ± 2.10, p < 0.001). The sagittal mandibular, vertical skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were similar between the groups (p > 0.05). The Alt-RAMEC protocol was found to be more effective in the correction of skeletal class III malocclusion in the short term. ZIEL: Unser Ziel war es, die Kurzzeiteffekte einer alternierenden schnellen Gaumennahtexpansion und -konstriktion (Alt-RAMEC) mit einer konventionellen schnellen Gaumennahtexpansion (RME) mit anschließender Gesichtsmaskenbehandlung (FM) zu vergleichen. In die Studie wurden insgesamt 30 Patienten aufgenommen, die nach RME- oder Alt-RAMEC-Protokollen eine Gesichtsmaskenbehandlung erhalten hatten. Die Gruppen Alt-RAMEC/FM und RME/FM wurden so zusammengestellt, dass sie hinsichtlich des Reifungsgrads der Halswirbel und des Geschlechts gut übereinstimmten. In der Alt-RAMEC-Gruppe (10 Jungen, 5 Mädchen, 10,99 ± 1,80 Jahre) wurden die Dehnschrauben eine Woche lang aktiviert (2 Umdrehungen/Tag) und in der darauf folgenden Woche deaktiviert (2 Umdrehungen/Tag). Das Aktivierungs‑/Deaktivierungsprotokoll wurde für 6 oder 7 Wochen fortgesetzt. In der RME/FM-Gruppe (10 Jungen, 5 Mädchen, 11,61 ± 1,20 Jahre) wurde die Schraubenaktivierung entsprechend den Anforderungen der Patienten durchgeführt. Die zu Beginn der Behandlung und am Ende der Gesichtsmaskenbehandlung angefertigten seitlichen Kephalogramme wurden analysiert. Die Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Gruppen wurden statistisch ausgewertet. Beide Gruppen zeigten eine signifikante sagittale Vorverlagerung des Oberkiefers. Die Alt-RAMEC/FM-Gruppe zeigte jedoch statistisch größere Verbesserungen als die RME/FM-Gruppe für SNA (3,11 ± 1,79 vs. 1,45 ± 1,34, p = 0,008), ANB (4,29 ± 1,80 vs. 2,95 ± 1,19, p = 0,023), Konvexität (8,91 ± 4,29 vs. 5,61 ± 2,51, p = 0,016) und Overjet (5,86 ± 2,29 vs. 4,61 ± 2,10, p < 0,001). Die sagittalen mandibulären, vertikalen skelettalen, dentalen und Weichgewebeveränderungen waren zwischen den Gruppen ähnlich (p > 0,05). Das Alt-RAMEC-Protokoll erwies sich bei der kurzfristigen Korrektur von skelettalen Klasse-III-Malokklusionen als wirksamer.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
ZIEL: Unser Ziel war es, die Kurzzeiteffekte einer alternierenden schnellen Gaumennahtexpansion und -konstriktion (Alt-RAMEC) mit einer konventionellen schnellen Gaumennahtexpansion (RME) mit anschließender Gesichtsmaskenbehandlung (FM) zu vergleichen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35257194
doi: 10.1007/s00056-022-00380-z
pii: 10.1007/s00056-022-00380-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
278-286Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
Références
Tanne K, Sakuda M (1991) Biomechanical and clinical changes of the craniofacial complex from orthopedic maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 61(2):145–152
pubmed: 2064072
Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, Hechtner M, Wehrbein H (2015) Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 19(6):1181–1192
doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1478-4
pubmed: 25982454
Liou EJ, Tsai WC (2005) A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42(2):121–127
doi: 10.1597/03-107.1
pubmed: 15748102
Wang YC, Chang PM, Liou EJ (2009) Opening of circumaxillary sutures by alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Angle Orthod 79(2):230–234
doi: 10.2319/031208-141.1
pubmed: 19216603
Isci D, Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S (2010) Activation-deactivation rapid palatal expansion and reverse headgear in class III cases. Eur J Orthod 32(6):706–715
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq006
pubmed: 20457582
Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S (2015) Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148(4):641–651
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.038
pubmed: 26432320
Masucci C, Franchi L, Giuntini V, Defraia E (2014) Short-term effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of class III malocclusion: a controlled study. Orthod Craniofac Res 17(4):259–269
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12051
pubmed: 25041370
da Luz Vieira G, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Rizzatto S (2009) Dentoskeletal effects of maxillary protraction in cleft patients with repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 46(4):391–398
doi: 10.1597/07-144.1
pubmed: 19642763
Do-deLatour TB, Ngan P, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E (2009) Effect of alternate maxillary expansion and contraction on protraction of the maxilla: a pilot study. Hong Kong Dent J 6(2):72–82
Onem Ozbilen E, Yilmaz HN, Kucukkeles N (2019) Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy. Korean J Orthod 49(1):49–58
doi: 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.1.49
pubmed: 30603625
Fischer B, Masucci C, Ruellas A et al (2018) Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary effects of two orthopaedic protocols for the treatment of class III malocclusion: a prospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res 21(4):248–257
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12247
pubmed: 30253035
Zhao T, Hua F, He H (2020) Alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) may be more effective than rapid maxillary expansion alone for protraction facial mask treatment. J Evid Based Dent Pract 20(2):101408
doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101408
pubmed: 32473799
Alkhal HA, Wong RW, Rabie AB (2008) Correlation between chronological age, cervical vertebral maturation and Fishman’s skeletal maturity indicators in southern Chinese. Angle Orthod 78(4):591–596
doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0591:CBCACV]2.0.CO;2
pubmed: 18302455
Almeida M, Laurent MR, Dubois V et al (2017) Estrogens and androgens in skeletal physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev 97(1):135–187
doi: 10.1152/physrev.00033.2015
pubmed: 27807202
Celikoglu M, Buyukcavus MH (2017) Evaluation of the effects of two different Alt-RAMEC procedures: five weeks versus nine weeks. Aust Orthod J 33(2):249
Liu Y, Hou R, Jin H et al (2021) Relative effectiveness of facemask therapy with alternate maxillary expansion and constriction in the early treatment of class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 159(3):321–332
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.028
pubmed: 33487499
Al-Mozany SA, Dalci O, Almuzian M, Gonzalez C, Tarraf NE, Darendeliler AM (2017) A novel method for treatment of class III malocclusion in growing patients. Prog Orthod 18(1):40
doi: 10.1186/s40510-017-0192-y
pubmed: 29226300
pmcid: 5723582
Wilmes B, Ngan P, Liou EJ, Franchi L, Drescher D (2014) Early class III facemask treatment with the hybrid hyrax and Alt-RAMEC protocol. J Clin Orthod 48(2):84–93
pubmed: 24763681
Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F (2011) Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod 81(4):639–646
doi: 10.2319/081010-473.1
pubmed: 21299407
pmcid: 8919738
Meazzini MC, Zappia LB, Tortora C, Autelitano L, Tintinelli R (2019) Short- and long-term effects of late maxillary advancement with the Liou-Alt-RAMEC protocol in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 56(2):159–167
doi: 10.1177/1055665618772395
pubmed: 29702006
Meazzini MC, Torre C, Cappello A, Tintinelli R, De Ponti E, Mazzoleni F (2021) Long-term follow-up of late maxillary orthopedic advancement with the Liou-alternate rapid maxillary expansion-constriction technique in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 160(2):221–230
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.027
pubmed: 34183222
Biederman W (1973) Rapid correction of class III malocclusion by midpalatal expansion. Am J Orthod 63(1):47–55
doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(73)90109-7
pubmed: 4565361
Yilmaz BS, Kucukkeles N (2014) Skeletal, soft tissue, and airway changes following the alternate maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol. Angle Orthod 84(5):868–877
pubmed: 24621102
Stocker B, Willmann JH, Wilmes B, Vasudavan S, Drescher D (2016) Wear-time recording during early class III facemask treatment using Theramon chip technology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 150(3):533–540
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.016
pubmed: 27585783
Maino G, Turci Y, Arreghini A, Paoletto E, Siciliani G, Lombardo L (2018) Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybrid rapid palatal expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 153(2):262–268
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.022
pubmed: 29407504
Miranda F, da Cunha Bastos JC, Magno Dos Santos A, Janson G, Lauris JRP, Garib D (2021) Dentoskeletal comparison of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction with hybrid and conventional hyrax expanders: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 160(6):774–783
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.02.017
pubmed: 34509329
Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E (2015) Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Prog Orthod 16(1):1–11
doi: 10.1186/s40510-015-0096-7
Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Franchi L, Drescher D (2014) Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination: a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 85(5):764–770
doi: 10.2319/071614-497.1
pubmed: 25393800
pmcid: 8610391
Gandedkar NH, Liou EJ (2018) The immediate effect of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions on the alveolus: a retrospective cone beam computed tomography study. Prog Orthod 19(1):40
doi: 10.1186/s40510-018-0237-x
pubmed: 30318565
pmcid: 6186528
Kama JD, Ozer T, Baran S (2006) Orthodontic and orthopaedic changes associated with treatment in subjects with class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 28(5):496–502
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl011
pubmed: 16772318