+ 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

Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction



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



Our objectives in this study were to evaluate in 3 dimensions the growth and treatment effects on the midface and the maxillary dentition produced by facemask therapy in association with rapid maxillary expansion (RME/FM) compared with bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP). Forty-six patients with Class III malocclusion were treated with either RME/FM (n = 21) or BAMP (n = 25). Three-dimensional models generated from cone-beam computed tomographic scans, taken before and after approximately 1 year of treatment, were registered on the anterior cranial base and measured using color-coded maps and semitransparent overlays. The skeletal changes in the maxilla and the right and left zygomas were on average 2.6 mm in the RME/FM group and 3.7 mm in the BAMP group; these were different statistically. Seven RME/FM patients and 4 BAMP patients had a predominantly vertical displacement of the maxilla. The dental changes at the maxillary incisors were on average 3.2 mm in the RME/FM group and 4.3 mm in the BAMP group. Ten RME/FM patients had greater dental compensations than skeletal changes. This 3-dimensional study shows that orthopedic changes can be obtained with both RME/FM and BAMP treatments, with protraction of the maxilla and the zygomas. Approximately half of the RME/FM patients had greater dental than skeletal changes, and a third of the RME/FM compared with 17% of the BAMP patients had a predominantly vertical maxillary displacement.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 056568913

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24182587

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.011


Related references

Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Investigations 19(6): 1181-1192, 2018

Three-dimensional assessment of maxillary changes associated with bone anchored maxillary protraction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 140(6): 790-798, 2012

Rapid maxillary expansion compared to surgery for assistance in maxillary face mask protraction. Angle Orthodontist 81(1): 42-49, 2011

Bone-anchored maxillary protraction therapy in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: 3-dimensional assessment of maxillary effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 152(3): 327-335, 2017

Treatment of maxillary deficiency with the combination of rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 12(4): 310-312, 2004

Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Progress in Orthodontics 16: 26, 2016

Validity of palatal superimposition of 3-dimensional digital models in cases treated with rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction headgear. Korean Journal of Orthodontics 42(5): 235-241, 2012

Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthodontist 80(5): 799-806, 2010

Evaluation of maxillary three-dimensional changes in maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction based on the cone-beam computed tomography. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 50(4): 685-692, 2018

The Effects of Maxillary Protraction with or without Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Age Factors in Treating Class III Malocclusion: A Meta-Analysis. Plos One 10(6): E0130096, 2016

Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 137(3): 304.E1-12; Discussion 304-5, 2010

Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 137(3): 304-305, 2010

Changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone position after maxillary protraction with different alternate rapid maxillary expansion and construction protocols: A prospective clinical study. Angle Orthodontist 87(4): 519-525, 2017

Three-dimensional evaluation of rapid maxillary expansion anchored to primary molars: direct effects on maxillary arch and spontaneous mandibular response. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 20(1): 38-42, 2019

The effectiveness of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction combined with maxillary protraction in the treatment of patients with a class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthodontics 45(4): 250-259, 2018