Treatment effects of orthopedic face mask assessed with counterpart analysis

Year 2013, Volume: 30 Issue: 3, 133 - 9, 11.10.2013

Burcu Baloş Tuncer Ebru Küçükkaraca Cumhur Tuncer , Nilüfer Darendeliler

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of face mask therapy (RH) on middle cranial base and maxillo-mandibular complexes, and to compare the responses with untreated class 3 subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHOD: The treatment group comprised 20 skeletal class 3 children (14 girls, 6 boys; mean age: 11 years 3 months) treated with RH assisted by rapid maxillary expansion (mean treatment time: 9.6 months). The control group included 22 skeletal class 3 subjects (9 girls, 13 boys; mean age: 10 years) observed for 9.5 months. Cephalometric measurements were performed by counterpart analysis. For intragroup statistical comparisons paired t-test, and for intergroup comparisons independent t-test was used.

RESULTS: The treatment group revealed significant increases for SNA, ANB, SN-GoGn, Co-A and Co-Gn (p<0.001), and decrease for SNB (p<0.001). The treatment group revealed significant increases in the effective dimension of the middle cranial base (Ar-SE, p<0.05; So-Hor, p<0.001), maxilla (p<0.001), and anterior-posterior nasomaxillary complex (p<0.001, p<0.05, respectively), and decrease in the effective dimension of the mandibular corpus (p<0.05). According to the intergroup comparisons, treatment group revealed more pronounced maxillary advancement (p<0.001), posterior rotation in the mandible (p<0.001), significant increase in the effective dimension of the middle cranial base (So-Hor, p<0.01) and decrease in the effective dimension of the mandibular corpus at a significance level of p<0.001.

CONCLUSION: Revealed by the effects on the middle cranial base morphology, favorable treatment responses were achieved with the use of the RH technique.

Keywords

Cephalometry, Cranial Base, Mandible, Maxilla, Orthodontics, Orthodontic Appliances

Ortopedik yüz maskesi tedavi etkilerinin counterpart analizi ile incelenmesi

Abstract

AMAÇ: Çalışmanın amacı, ortopedik yüz maskesi (RH) tedavisinin orta kraniyal kaide ve üst ve alt çene kompleksindeki etkilerini counterpart (eşdeğer) analizi ile değerlendirmek ve tedavi görmemiş Sınıf 3 bireylerle karşılaştırmaktır.

GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Tedavi grubu; üst çenede hızlı genişletme ile birlikte RH tedavisi görmüş ve üst çenesinde retrognati bulunan 20 iskeletsel Sınıf 3 bireyden (14 kız, 6 erkek; ortalama yaşları: 11 yıl 3 ay) oluşmaktadır. Ortalama tedavi süresi 9.6 aydır. Kontrol grubu ortalama 9.5 ay takip edilmiş 22 iskeletsel Sınıf 3 bireyden (9 kız, 13 erkek; ortalama yaşları: 10 yıl) oluşmaktadır. Sefalometrik değerlendirme eşdeğer analizi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Grup içi karşılaştırmalarda eşleştirilmiş t-testi; gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarda bağımsız t-testi kullanılmıştır.

BULGULAR: SNA, ANB, SN-GoGn açıları, Co-A, Co-Gn boyutları tedavi ile önemli düzeyde artarken (p<0.001), SNB açısı azalmıştır (p<0.001). Tedavi grubunda orta kraniyal kaide boyutları (Ar-SE, p<0.05; So-Hor, p<0.001), üst çene (p<0.001) ve ön-arka nazomaksiller komplekste artış (p<0.001, p<0.05, sırasıyla) ile mandibuler korpus boyutunda azalma (p<0.05) bulunmuştur. Gruplar arası karşılaştırmada, üst çene ileri yön büyümesinin tedavi grubunda daha belirgin olduğu (p<0.001), alt çenede posterior rotasyon oluştuğu (p<0.001), kontrol grubunda orta kraniyal kaide boyutu değişmezken tedavi grubunda önemli artış olduğu (So-Hor, p<0.01) ve mandibuler korpus boyutundaki azalmanın p<0.001 düzeyinde olduğu bulunmuştur.

SONUÇ: Büyüme dönemindeki iskeletsel Sınıf 3 bireylerde RH tedavisi ile orta kraniyal kaide boyutlarında artış ve mandibuler korpus boyutunda azalma ile önemli tedavi etkileri gözlenmektedir.

Keywords

Kafa Tabanı, Üst Çene, Alt Çene, Ortodonti, Ortodontik Cihazlar, Sefalometri

References

• 1. Anderson D, Popovich F. Relation of cranial base flexure to cranial form and mandibular position. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;61:181-7. 2. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Growth in the untreated Class III subject. Semin Orthod 2007;13:130-42.
• 3. Guyer EC, Ellis EE 3rd, McNamara JA Jr, Behrents RG. Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod 1986;56:7-30.
• 4. Battagel JM. The aetiology of Class III malocclusion examined by tensor analysis. Br J Orthod 1993;20:283-95.
• 5. Bastir M, Rosas A. Correlated variation between the lateral basicranium and the face: a geometric morphometric study in different human groups. Arch Oral Biol 2006;51:814-24.
• 6. Enlow DH, McNamara JA Jr. The neurocranial basis for facial form and pattern. Angle Orthod 1973;43:256-70.
• 7. Bhat M, Enlow DH. Facial variations related to headform type. Angle Orthod 1985;55:269-80.
• 8. Enlow DH, Moyers RE, Hunter WS, McNamara JA. A procedure for the analysis of intrinsic facial form and growth. Am J Orthod 1969;56:5-23.
• 9. Enlow DH, Pfister C, Richardson E, Kuroda T. An analysis of Black and Caucasian craniofacial patterns. Angle Orthod 1982;52:279-87.
• 10. Dhopatkar A, Bhatia SN, Rock P. An investigation into the relationship between the cranial base angle and malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2002;72:456-63.
• 11. Lew KK, Foong WC. Horizontal skeletal typing in an ethnic Chinese population with true Class III malocclusions. Br J Orthod 1993;20:19-23.
• 12. Emrich RE, Brodie AG, Blayney JR. Prevalence of Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 malocclusions (Angle) in an urban population. An epidemiological study. J Dent Res 1965;44:947-53.
• 13. Celikoglu M, Akpinar S, Yavuz I. The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15: e791-6.
• 14. Singh GD. Morphologic determinants in the etiology of class III malocclusions: a review. Clin Anat 1999;12:382-405.
• 15. Shanker S, Ngan P, Wade D, Beck M, Yiu C, Hägg U, et al. Cephalometric A point changes during and after maxillary protraction and expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:423-30.
• 16. Takada K, Petdachai S, Sakuda M. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal Class III children treated by a modified protraction headgear and a chin-cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:211-21.
• 17. Bergersen EO. The male adolescent facial growth spurt: its prediction and relation to skeletal maturation. Angle Orthod 1972;42:319-38. 18. Roche AF, Lewis AB. Sex differences in the elongation of the cranial base during pubescence. Angle Orthod 1974;44:279-94.
• 19. Roche AF, Lewis AB, Wainer H, McCartin R. Late elongation of the cranial base. J Dent Res 1977;56:802-8.
• 20. Hopkin GB, Houston WJ, James GA. The cranial base as an aetiological factor in malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1968;38:250-5.
• 21. Kerr WJ, Adams CP. Cranial base and jaw relationship. Am J Phys Anthropol 1988;77:213-20.
• 22. Lozanoff S, Jureczek S, Feng T, Padwal R. Anterior cranial base morphology in mice with midfacial retrusion. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1994;31:417-28.
• 23. Ma W, Lozanoff S. Morphological deficiency in the prenatal anterior cranial base of midfacially retrognathic mice. J Anat 1996;188:547-55.
• 24. Williams S, Andersen CE. The morphology of the potential Class III skeletal pattern in the growing child. Am J Orthod 1986;89:302-11.
• 25. Riolo ML, Moyers RE, McNamara JA Jr, Hunter WS. An atlas of craniofacial growth: cephalometric standards from The University School Growth Study, The University of Michigan. Craniofacial Growth Series, 2nd vol. Ann Arbor: MI, Center for Human Growth and Development; 1974. p.1-379.
• 26. Bacetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. Jr. Cephalometric variables predicting the long-term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:16-22.
• 27. Bell RA. A review of maxillary expansion in relation to the rate of orthopedics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982;81:32-7.
• 28. Campbell PM. The dilemma of Class III treatment. Early or late? Angle Orthod 1983;53:175-91.
• 29. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod 1970;57:219-55.
• 30. Haskell BS, Farman AG. Exploitation of the residual premaxillarymaxillary suture site in maxillary protraction. An hypothesis. Angle Orthod 1985;55:108-19.
• 31. Spolyar JL. The design, fabrication and use of full-coverage bonded rapid maxillary expansion appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;86:136-45.
• 32. Franchi L, Bacetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Shape-coordinate analysis changes induced by rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:418-26.
• 33. Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:204-12.
• 34. McDonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK. Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:13-24.
• 35. Nartallo-Turley PE, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and the face mask therapy on Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1998;68:217-24.
• 36. Hiyama S, Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Tsuiki S, Ogawa M, Suzuki S, et al. Effects of maxillary protraction on craniofacial structures and upperairway dimension. Angle Orthod 2002;72:43-7.
• 37. Mermigos J, Full CA, Andreasen G. Protraction of the maxillofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:47-55.
• 38. Singh GD, McNamara JA Jr, Lozanoff S. Finite element analysis of the cranial base in subjects with Class III malocclusion. Br J Orthod 1997;24:103-12.
• 39. Saadia M, Torres E. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction with expansion in class III patients in the primary, mixed, and late mixed dentitions: a longitudinal retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:669-80.
• 40. Moyers RE, Bookstein FL. The inappropriateness of conventional cephalometrics. Am J Orthod 1979;75:599-617.