We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
[A cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of maxillary protraction with repetitive rapid palatal expansions and constrictions].
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue za Zhi = Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chinese Journal of Stomatology 2015 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of maxillary protraction combined with repetitive rapid palatal expansions and constrictions (RPE/C) vs. rapid palatal expansion (RPE) alone using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
METHODS: Twenty four subjects with maxillary retrusion were recruited and block randomized into either the control group (n = 12) or the RPE/C (n = 12) group.
CONTROL GROUP: facemask protraction after RPE. RPE/C group: facemask protraction after RPE/C. 3D reconstruction, landmarks identifying, superimposition and cephalometric analysis were performed to compare the pre-treatment and post- treatment CBCT images.
RESULTS: One subject in the RPE/C group was lost to follow up during the treatment. Maxilla moved forward [(2.5±1.0) mm] after maxillary protraction with RPE/C, which was significantly greater than that in the control group [(1.6±0.8) mm] (P < 0.05). The distance of basion to subspinale (Ba-A) increased [(3.1±1.0) mm] in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the control group [(2.2 ± 0.9) mm] (P < 0.05). The amount of forward movement of upper first molars was significantly greater in the RPE/C group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary protraction with RPE/C might positively affect the forward movement of maxilla compared with the RPE alone protocol with the early treatment of maxillary retrusion patients.
METHODS: Twenty four subjects with maxillary retrusion were recruited and block randomized into either the control group (n = 12) or the RPE/C (n = 12) group.
CONTROL GROUP: facemask protraction after RPE. RPE/C group: facemask protraction after RPE/C. 3D reconstruction, landmarks identifying, superimposition and cephalometric analysis were performed to compare the pre-treatment and post- treatment CBCT images.
RESULTS: One subject in the RPE/C group was lost to follow up during the treatment. Maxilla moved forward [(2.5±1.0) mm] after maxillary protraction with RPE/C, which was significantly greater than that in the control group [(1.6±0.8) mm] (P < 0.05). The distance of basion to subspinale (Ba-A) increased [(3.1±1.0) mm] in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the control group [(2.2 ± 0.9) mm] (P < 0.05). The amount of forward movement of upper first molars was significantly greater in the RPE/C group (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary protraction with RPE/C might positively affect the forward movement of maxilla compared with the RPE alone protocol with the early treatment of maxillary retrusion patients.
Full text links
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