We have located links that may give you full text access.
English Abstract
Journal Article
[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 = Huaxi Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = West China Journal of Stomatology 2009 April
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment with maxillary protraction with or without rapid palatal expansion (RPE) for skeletal Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition.
METHODS: A total of 31 children with Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition were selected, and 15 (group A) received maxillary protraction treatment with RPE, the other 16 (group B) received maxillary protraction without RPE. Cephalometric films were taken before and after treatment, and traditional and Pancherz analysis were used.
RESULTS: The average duration of treatment was 10.14 months in group A and 9.77 months in group B respectively (P>0.05). According to Pancherz analysis, maxillary basal bone moved forwards by 2.99 mm in group A and 3.33 mm in group B respectively (P>0.05), mandibular basal bone moved backwards by 0.07 mm in group A, while forwards by 0.80 mm in group B (P>0.05), the overjet increased by 4.51 mm in group A and 6.37 mm in group B respectively (P<0.05), and the molar relationship improved by 4.97 mm in group A and 4.73 mm in group B respectively (P>0.05). The effects were clinically satisfactory in the both groups. Lower molar moved forwards by 1.18 mm in basal bone in group A, while backwards by 1.20 mm in group B (P<0.05). Traditional cephalometric analysis showed no statistic differences between the two groups except that upper incisior showed greater procline in group B than in group A (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study shows that maxillary protraction treatment, with or without RPE, is clinically satisfactory to correct early skeletal Class III malocclusion.
METHODS: A total of 31 children with Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition were selected, and 15 (group A) received maxillary protraction treatment with RPE, the other 16 (group B) received maxillary protraction without RPE. Cephalometric films were taken before and after treatment, and traditional and Pancherz analysis were used.
RESULTS: The average duration of treatment was 10.14 months in group A and 9.77 months in group B respectively (P>0.05). According to Pancherz analysis, maxillary basal bone moved forwards by 2.99 mm in group A and 3.33 mm in group B respectively (P>0.05), mandibular basal bone moved backwards by 0.07 mm in group A, while forwards by 0.80 mm in group B (P>0.05), the overjet increased by 4.51 mm in group A and 6.37 mm in group B respectively (P<0.05), and the molar relationship improved by 4.97 mm in group A and 4.73 mm in group B respectively (P>0.05). The effects were clinically satisfactory in the both groups. Lower molar moved forwards by 1.18 mm in basal bone in group A, while backwards by 1.20 mm in group B (P<0.05). Traditional cephalometric analysis showed no statistic differences between the two groups except that upper incisior showed greater procline in group B than in group A (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study shows that maxillary protraction treatment, with or without RPE, is clinically satisfactory to correct early skeletal Class III malocclusion.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app