SINIF III MALOKLÜZYONLARIN HIZLI ÜST ÇENE GENİŞLETMESİ VE ORTOPEDİK YÜZ MASKESİ İLE TEDAVİSİNDE MANDİBULADA LİNGUAL ARK KULLANIMININ DENTOALVEOLAR YAPILAR ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 3, 201 - 207, 14.07.2022

Gökhan Çoban Merve Ece Erdem Taner Öztürk , Büşra Karadaş İbrahim Yavuz

https://doi.org/10.54614/CRDS.2022.6190

Öz

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmanın amacı, iskeletsel Sınıf III maloklüzyona sahip büyüme dönemindeki çocuklarda hızlı üst çene genişletmesi ile birlikte yüz maskesi ve yüz maskesine ilave olarak mandibulada lingual ark kullanılan bireylerin faz I tedavileri sonunda sefalometrik sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi ve elde edilen sonuçların gruplar arasında karşılaştırılmasıdır. Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza genişletme ve yüz maskesi ile tedavi edilen 30 hasta (I. grup; 14 kız 16 erkek, yaş ort.: 11,92 ± 1,21yıl) ve genişletme ile yüz maskesine ilave olarak lingual ark kullanılarak tedavi edilen 30 hasta (II. grup; 16 kız 14 erkek, yaş ort.: 11,61 ± 1,25) olmak üzere toplam 60 birey dahil edilmiştir. Tedaviden öncesi ve sonrası lateral sefalometrik radyografilerin çizimleri Dolphin görüntüleme programı (versiyon 11.95) aracılığı ile yapılmıştır. Grup içi ve gruplar arası parametrik veriler için sırasıyla eşleştirilmiş t testi (Paired Samples t-test) ve Bağımsız örneklem t testi (Independent Samples t-test); non-parametrik veriler için sırasıyla Wilcoxon Rank testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Her iki grupta SNA(°), ANB(°), SN-GoGn(°), N-A(mm), Co-A(mm), L1-MP(mm), L6-MP(mm) mesafeleri ve overjet(mm) anlamlı şekilde artarken; SNB(°) ile N-Pog(mm) ve L1-Apog(mm) mesafeleri anlamlı şekilde azalmıştır. U1-SN(°) ve interinsizal açıda yalnızca II. grupta anlamlı değişiklikler gözlenirken; oklüzal düzlem açısında ise yalnızca I. grupta anlamlı değişiklik gözlenmiştir. Gruplar arası karşılaştırmada II. grupta SNA(°), ANB(°), Co-A(mm) daha fazla artarken; interinsizal açı daha fazla azalmıştır. U1-SN(°) ve IMPA(°) ile L1-NB(mm) uzaklığı II. grupta artarken I. grupta azalmış; U1-NA(°) ve oklüzal düzlem açısı ise II. grupta azalırken I. grupta artmıştır. L6-MP(mm) mesafesi ise I. grupta daha fazla artmıştır. Sonuç: Büyüme gelişimi devam eden iskeletsel Sınıf III maloklüzyona sahip hastalarda alt keserleri retrokline etmemek ve oklüzal düzlem açısını arttırmamak için yüz maskesi tedavilerine ilaveten lingual ark kullanımı etkili bir seçenektir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sefalometri, yüz maskesi, lingual ark, iskeletsel sınıf III
ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the cephalometric changes of growing children with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated with rapid palatal expansion and face mask alone or rapid palatal expansion with face mask and mandibular lingual arch, and to compare the two groups at the end of phase I treatment. Methods: Thirty patients (14 girls, 16 boys, mean age: 11.92 ± 1.21 years) treated with rapid palatal expansion and face mask alone (group I) and 30 patients treated with rapid palatal expansion and face mask and lingual arch (group II), a total of 60 individuals were included in his study. The lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before and after treatment were traced using the Dolphin imaging program (version 11.95). For intragroup and intergroup comparisons of parametric data, 'Paired Samples t-test' and 'Independent Samples t-test' were used, respectively; 'Wilcoxon Rank test' and 'Mann-Whitney U-test' were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of non-parametric data, respectively. Results: SNA(°), ANB(°), SN-GoGn(°), N-A(mm), Co-A(mm), L1-MP(mm), L6-MP(mm) measurements, and overjet(mm) in creased significantly in both groups while SNB(°), N-Pog(mm) and L1-Apog(mm) measurements were significantly decreased. Significant changes were observed in U1-SN(°) and interincisal angle only in group II and in the occlusal plane angle was significantly changed only in group I. While SNA(°), ANB(°), Co-A(mm) increased more in the group II; interincisal angle is further reduced. While U1-SN(°), IMPA(°), L1-NB(mm) increased in group II, it decreased in group I; U1-NA(°) and occlusal plane angle decreased in group II and increased in group I. L6-MP(mm) further increased in group I. Conclusion: In patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion who have not completed growth development, the use of a lingual arch is an effective option in addition to face mask treatments in order not to retrocline the lower incisors and increase the occlusal plane angle.
Keywords: Cephalometry, face mask, lingual arch, skeletal class III

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sefalometri, yüz maskesi, lingual ark, iskeletsel sınıf III

Kaynakça

• 1. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Larson BE, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2019.
• 2. Alami S, Aghoutan H, Quars F, Diouny S, Bourgui F. Early treatment of anterior crossbite relating to functional class III. Emerging Trends in Oral Health Sciences and Dentistry. 1st ed. In thech Publishers; 2015:341. [Crossref]
• 3. Ellis III E, McNamara Jr JA. Components of adult Class III open-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1984;86(4):277-290. [Crossref]
• 4. Sayin M, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:635- 639.
• 5. Gelgör İE, Karaman İA, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent. 2007;1(3):125-131. [Crossref]
• 6. Canturk BH, Celikoglu M. Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(2):284-291. [Crossref]
• 7. Yavuz I, Halıcıoğlu K, Ceylan I. Face mask therapy effects in two skeletal maturation groups of female subjects with skeletal Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(5):842-848. [Crossref]
• 8. Baccetti T, McGill JS, Franchi L, McNamara Jr JA, Tollaro I. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(3):333-343. [Crossref]
• 9. Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, et al. A comparative assessment of ort hodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: A single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(1):3-12. [Crossref]
• 10. Lim LI, Choi JY, Ahn HW, Kim SH, Chung KR, Nelson G. Treatment outcomes of the various force applications in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion: A comparative lateral cephalometric study. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(4):449-458. [Crossref]
• 11. Yagci A, Uysal T. Effects of conventional and modified facemask therapies on dentofacial structures. Korean J Orthod. 2010;40(6):432- 443. [Crossref]
• 12. Yavuz İ, Halicioglu K, Ceylan İ, Dagsuyu IM, Erdem A. The effects of face mask therapy with and without rapid maxillary expansion in adolescent patients. Aust Orthod J. 2012;28:63-71.
• 13. Yavuz İ, Durna N, Erdem A. Çenelik tedavisinde lingual ark uygulamasının dento-alveolar yapılar üzerindekinin etkilerinin incelenmesi. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2006;16(2):1-9. 206 Curr Res Dent Sci 2022 32(3): 201-207 l doi: 10.54614/CRDS.2022.6190
• 14. Letti HCB, Rizzatto SMD, Menezes LMd, Reale CS, Lima EMd, Martinelli FL. Sagittal changes in lower incisors by the use of lingual arch. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(3):29-34. [Crossref]
• 15. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Larson BE, Sarver DM. Mechanical Principles in Orthodontic Force Control. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2019. 16. Cha BK, Choi DS, Ngan P, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Kim SM. Maxillary protraction with mini plates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(1):99-112. [Crossref]
• 17. Campbell PM. The dilemma of Class III treatment: early or late?. Angle Orthod. 1983;53(3):175-191.
• 18. Thiesen G, da Luz Fontes JdO, Zastrow MD, May NB. Incremental effects of facemask therapy associated with intermaxillary mechanics. Aust Orthod J. 2010;26(1):78-83.
• 19. Ugolini A, Cossellu G, Rusconi F, De Luca S. Analysis of the palatal rugae following Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME) by using a 3D-3D superimposition procedure. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2021:1-12. [Crossref]
• 20. Ramoglu SI, Sari Z. Maxillary expansion in the mixed dentition: rapid or semi-rapid? Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):11-18. [Crossref]
• 21. Fields Jr HW, DMD DMS. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed.Chapter 13.; 2007:p.503.
• 22. Liang S, Wang F, Chang Q, Bai Y. Three-dimensional comparative evaluation of customized bone-anchored vs tooth-borne maxillary protraction in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;160(3):374-384. [Crossref]
• 23. Liu Z, Li C, Hu H, Chen J, Li F, Zou S. Efficacy of short-term chincup therapy for mandibular growth retardation in Class III malocclusion: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(1):162-168. [Crossref]
• 24. Kilinc AS, Arslan SG, Kama JD, Özer T, Dari O. Effects on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions of protraction and rapid palatal expansion in Class III malocclusion subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(1):61-66. [Crossref]
• 25. Maino G, Turci Y, Arreghini A, Paoletto E, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybrid rapid palatal expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(2):262-268. [Crossref]
• 26. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(3):299-309. [Crossref]
• 27. Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Prog Orthod. 2015;16:26.1-11. [Crossref]
• 28. Kim J-H, Viana MA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(6):675-685. [Crossref]
• 29. Yüksel S, Üçem TT, Keykubat A. Early and late facemask therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23(5):559-568. [Crossref]
• 30. Yavan MA, Gulec A, Orhan M. Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions: A randomized controlled clinical study. J Orofac Orthop. 2021; Jul 16. [Crossref]
• 31. Macdonald 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(1):13-24. [Crossref]
• 32. Chen L, Chen R, Yang Y, Ji G, Shen G. The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability—a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(1):88-95. [Crossref]
• 33. Viglianisi A. Effects of lingual arch used as space maintainer on mandibular arch dimension: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(4):382. e1-4. [Crossref]
• 34. Rebellato J, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Isaacson RJ, Davidovitch M, Vroom K. Lower arch perimeter preservation using the lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(4):449-456. [Crossref]
• 35. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver D. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. Mosby; 2007.
• 36. Ülgen M. Ortodonti: Anomaliler, Sefalometri, Etiloji, Büyüme ve Gelişim, Tanı. 2nd ed. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Yayınları; 2000.
• 37. Westwood PV, McNamara Jr JA, 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(3):306-320. [Crossre