Korean J Orthod.  2010 Dec;40(6):432-443. 10.4041/kjod.2010.40.6.432.

Effects of conventional and modified facemask therapies on dentofacial structures

• Yagci A
• Uysal T

• KMID: 1459545
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.6.432

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the dentofacial effects of conventional and modified facemask therapies with rapid maxillary expansion, in a group of Class III patients; and compared with an untreated control group.
METHODS
The conventional facemask group (Group 1) comprised of 24 patients, 13 girls and 11 boys (mean age, 9.2 +/- 1.4 years); the modified facemask treatment group (Group 2) comprised of 24 patients, 12 girls and 12 boys (mean age, 9.3 +/- 1.6 years); and the control group (Group 3) comprised of 21 subjects, 11 girls and 10 boys (mean age, 9.8 +/- 1.9 years). Treatment and control changes within the groups and the differences between the groups were analyzed statistically. Intra-group comparisons were evaluated using the non-parametric Wilcoxon's test and intergroup changes were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The statistical significance of intergroup differences was further assessed with the Mann-Whitney test for independent samples and applying Bonferroni's correction (p < 0.016).
RESULTS
In group 1, SNB changes were less than the control. There were increases in SNA, ANB, SN-MP, A to N perp and Upper lip to E plane. In group 2, SNB, U1-NA (mm) U1-NA (degrees) and Pog to N perp (mm) changes were less than the control. There were increases in SNA, ANB, SN-MP, A to N perp and Upper lip to E plane.
CONCLUSIONS
Modified facemask appliance can be used effectively in Class III patients with a retrognathic maxilla. Facemask therapies with expansion resulted in an anterior advancement and translation of maxilla without rotation; and the mandible moved downward and backward in both treatment groups.

Keyword

Malocclusion; Angle Class III; Extraoral traction appliances; Palatal expansion technique; Cephalometry

MeSH Terms

Cephalometry
Extraoral Traction Appliances
Humans
Lip
Malocclusion
Malocclusion, Angle Class III
Mandible
Maxilla
Palatal Expansion Technique
Prospective Studies

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Force application unit of conventional facemask appliance.

• 

  Fig. 2 Conventional facemask appliance. Downward and forward pull of 20° from the occlusal plane was applied.

• 

  Fig. 3 Force application unit of modified facemask appliance.

• 

  Fig. 4 Modified facemask appliance. The point of force was applied at the level of the dentomaxillary center of resistance.

• 

  Fig. 5 Cephalometric landmarks used in the present study.

Reference

1. Ngan P, Hägg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 109:38–49.

2. Guyer EC, Ellis EE 3rd, McNamara JA Jr, Behrents RG. Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod. 1986. 56:7–30.

3. Ellis E 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984. 42:295–305.

4. Jackson GW, Kokich VG, Shapiro PA. Experimental and postexperimental response to anteriorly directed extraoral force in young Macaca nemestrina. Am J Orthod. 1979. 75:318–333.

5. Kambara T. Dentofacial changes produced by extraoral forward force in the Macaca irus. Am J Orthod. 1977. 71:249–277.

6. Keles A, Tokmak EC, Erverdi N, Nanda R. Effect of varying the force direction on maxillary orthopedic protraction. Angle Orthod. 2002. 72:387–396.

7. Mermigos J, Full CA, Andreasen G. Protraction of the maxillofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 98:47–55.

8. McNamara JA Jr, Brudon WL. Orthodontic and orthopedic treatment in the mixed dentition. 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Needham Press;285–293.

9. Hickham JH. Maxillary protraction therapy: diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Orthod. 1991. 25:102–113.

10. Ishii H, Morita S, Takeuchi Y, Nakamura S. Treatment effect of combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in severe skeletal Class III cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987. 92:304–312.

11. Hata S, Itoh T, Nakagawa M, Kamogashira K, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto M, et al. Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987. 91:305–311.

12. Nanda R. Biomechanical and clinical considerations of a modified protraction headgear. Am J Orthod. 1980. 78:125–139.

13. Alcan T, Keles A, Erverdi N. The effects of a modified protraction headgear on maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 117:27–38.

14. Göyenç Y, Ersoy S. The effect of a modified reverse headgear force applied with a facebow on the dentofacial structures. Eur J Orthod. 2004. 26:51–57.

15. Petit H. McNamara JA, Ribbens KA, Howe RP, editors. Adaptations following accelerated facial mask therapy. Clinical alteration of the growing face. 1983. Ann Arbor: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan;48–59. Monograph no. 14, Craniofacial growth series.

16. Erbay EF, Caniklioğlu CM, Erbay SK. Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: Part I. Evaluation of horizontal lip position using different soft tissue analyses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002. 121:57–64.

17. Swlerenga D, Oesterle LJ, Messersmith ML. Cephalometric values for adult Mexican-Americans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:146–155.

18. Takada K, Petdachai S, Sakuda M. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal Class III children treated by a modified maxillary protraction headgear and a chin cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal. Eur J Orthod. 1993. 15:211–221.

19. Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998. 113:204–212.

20. Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A. Comparison of orthodontic and orthopedic effects of a modified maxillary protractor between deciduous and early mixed dentitions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 126:23–32.

21. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 118:404–413.

22. Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 108:583–592.

23. Yüksel S, Uçem TT, Keykubat A. Early and late facemask therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2001. 23:559–568.

24. Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 112:292–299.

25. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary orthodontics. 1993. St Louis: Mosby;456–459.

26. Haas AJ. The treatment of maxillary deficiency by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod. 1965. 35:200–217.

27. Kiliçoglu H, Kirliç Y. Profile changes in patients with class III malocclusions after Delaire mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998. 113:453–462.

28. Battagel JM, Orton HS. Class III malocclusion: the post-retention findings following a non-extraction treatment approach. Eur J Orthod. 1993. 15:45–55.

29. Macdonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK. Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 116:13–24.

30. Ngan P, Wei SH, Hagg U, Yiu CK, Merwin D, Stickel B. Effect of protraction headgear on Class III malocclusion. Quintessence Int. 1992. 23:197–207.