+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy



Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy



American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 131(1): 7.E9-7.19



The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was 3-fold: (1) to compare the effects and long-term stability of protraction facemask treatment with untreated Class III controls, (2) to compare the long-term stability of early protraction facemask treatment with later surgical maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy, and (3) to determine whether early intervention with protraction facemask is an effective treatment modality or whether surgical treatment after cessation of growth should be advocated. The sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated white patients with Class III malocclusions characterized by maxillary deficiency. The protraction sample consisted of 17 children (8 boys, 9 girls). The surgical sample consisted of 17 adults (10 men, 7 women). The protraction group was also compared with a control group of white subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of functional appliance treatment or 2 weeks postsurgery), and T3 (7 years 6 months postprotraction or 1 year 5 months postsurgery). Means and standard deviations were calculated for descriptive cephalometric measurements. ANOVA was used to assess the differences between and within the protraction and surgery groups at T1, T2, and T3. The Tukey studentized range test was performed to determine the source of the difference. In addition, paired t tests were used to compare the differences between the protraction group and the matched controls as well as between the surgery group and the matched controls. In the protraction group, there was continued favorable growth of the maxilla, even after the removal of the protraction facemask. From T2 to T3, the maxilla continued to move anteriorly in the protraction patients more so than in the control groups, which had decreases in the intermaxillary measurements (ANB angle and Wits appraisal) over time. The surgical group remained stable from T2 to T3 in all measurements studied. The most striking findings of this study were the general similarity between the protraction and the surgical groups at T3 and the overall stability of both treatment modalities over time.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 049492877

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17208098

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.024


Related references

Combined rapid maxillary expansion and protraction facemask in the treatment of Class III malocclusions in growing children: a prospective long-term study. Seminars in Orthodontics 3(4): 265-274, 1998

Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 123(3): 306-320, 2003

Sagittal airway changes: rapid palatal expansion versus Le Fort I osteotomy during maxillary protraction. European Journal of Orthodontics 34(3): 381-389, 2012

Stability of rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy: a long-term controlled study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 140(4): 493-500, 2011

Hard tissue changes in class III patients treated with maxillary protraction and rapid palatal expansion. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36(4): 273-276, 2001

Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 144(5): 705-714, 2014

Long-term stability of rapid maxillary expansion combined with chincup protraction followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthodontist 85(2): 270-277, 2016

Effect of maxillary protraction with or without rapid palatal expansion in treating early skeletal Class III malocclusion. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 27(2): 178-182, 2015

Long-term maxillary changes in patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion treated with slow and rapid palatal expansion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 134(3): 383-388, 2008

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 148(4): 641-651, 2016

Early treatment of the Class III malocclusion with rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 113(2): 196-203, 1998

The effects of maxillary protraction treatment with rapid maxillary expansion for skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 25(3): 327-333, 2017

Nonextraction treatment of a skeletal Class III adolescent girl with expansion and facemask: long-term stability. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 147(2): 252-263, 2015

Feasibility and long-term stability of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion with lateral osteotomy. European Journal of Orthodontics 26(4): 391-395, 2004

A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 8(4): 320-326, 2018