Assessment of dentoskeletal effects concomitant with skeletally anchored maxillary protraction in orthodontic skeletal Class III patients | ||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science | ||
| Article 14, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 123-135 PDF (1.38 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/ajdsm.2023.216446.1437 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Amr Mohamed Embaby* 1; Farouk Ahmed Hussein2; Khaled Farouk3 | ||
| 1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| 2Department of Orthodontics,Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University Cairo Egypt | ||
| 3Department of Orthodontics,Faculty of Dental Medicine, (BoysCairo), Al-Azhar University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Objective: The current prospective study evaluated the dentoskeletal effects subsequent to Maxillary protraction with Facemask in skeletal Class III malocclusion with or without skeletal anchorage. Materials and methods: Fourteen pre-pubertal patients, 9 boys and 5 girls were randomly allocated to the control group (mean initial age 10.69±1.56 years) and Miniscrew group (mean initial age 12.37 ± 1.47 years). All patients were treated with maxillary protraction using a Facemask that was attached to an intra-oral appliance comprising an acrylic splint. In the Miniscrew group, the intraoral appliance was connected to the miniscrews in order to obtain skeletal anchorage. Dentoskeletal variables were analyzed and compared within and between both groups via lateral cephalometric radiographs before (T1) and after Maxillary protraction (T2). Results: Within each group, Facemask therapy resulted in significant maxillary skeletal changes and non-significant changes in the maxillary incisor inclination. Mandibular anteroposterior skeletal changes were non-significant. However, the inclination of the lower incisor was significantly changed. The vertical changes that resulted from Facemask therapy were significant. Finally, a comparison of dentoskeletal changes between the two groups revealed a significant difference in the maxillary changes only. Conclusions: The use of miniscrew in conjunction with a facemask for maxillary protraction produces better maxillary skeletal results. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Skeletal Class III malocclusion; Maxillary protraction Skeletally anchored facemask; Palatal miniscrews | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 288 PDF Download: 187 |
||
