Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회지)

Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (대한소아치과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Facemask Effects in Two Types of Intraoral Appliances : Bonded Expander vs. Hyrax

구내 장치 종류에 따른 facemask의 효과 비교 : bonded expander와 Hyrax

  • Park, Chanyoung (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Kitae (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 박찬영 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 소아치과) ;
  • 박기태 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 치과진료부 소아치과)
  • Received : 2014.10.20
  • Accepted : 2014.11.19
  • Published : 2015.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate facemask effects when two types of intraoral appliances were used for maxillary protraction for patients with class III malocclusion. Eighteen patients with class III malocclusion were treated with a facemask for an average of 12 months. Two types of intraoral appliances were used: nine patients were treated with bonded expander (Group 1), and nine patients with Hyrax (Group 2). Cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after treatment. Cephalometric radiographs were traced, analyzed, and the results such as sagittal, vertical and soft-tissue changes were compared between two groups. The amount of anchorage loss was also measured to evaluate the difference between two groups. All patients showed significant sagittal skeletal changes after treatment, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. When anchorage loss was evaluated, no differences were shown between the two. Facemask with Hyrax or bonded expander is similarly an effective method as a treatment in class III malocclusion patients.

본 연구의 목적은 3급 부정교합 환자에서 facemask를 이용한 악정형치료 시, 고정원으로 사용하기 위해 장착되는 구내 장치의 종류에 따른 효과를 비교하는 것이다. 3급 부정교합 환자 18명을 대상으로 악정형치료를 평균 12개월 동안 시행하였으며, 이 중 9명은 구내 장치로 bonded expander를, 9명은 Hyrax를 사용하였다. 치료 시작 전, 그리고 치료 직후에 측면 두부방사선사진을 촬영하여 비교 분석하였다. 또한 고정원 소실 정도를 조사하고, 장치에 따른 차이를 비교하였다. 악정형치료 효과에서는 두 군 모두 뚜렷한 개선을 보였고, 군간의 유의한 차이는 없었다. 각 구내 장치 모두 어느 정도의 고정원 소실량은 존재하였지만 군간의 차이는 없었다. Facemask는 성장기 3급 부정교합 환자의 치료에 있어서 효과적인 치료 방법이며, 구내 장치로 사용된 bonded expander와 Hyrax 간에 유의한 차이는 없었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Solano-Mendoza B, Iglesias-Linares A, Yanez-Vico RM, et al. : Maxillary protraction at early ages. The revolution of new bone anchorage appliances. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 37:219-229, 2012. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.37.2.q0k770403v443053
  2. Baik HS, Han HK, Kim DJ, et al. : Cephalometric characteristics of Korean Class III surgical patients and their relationship to plans for surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, 15:119-128, 2000.
  3. Chan GK : Class 3 malocclusion in Chinese (Cantonese): Etiology and treatment. Am J Orthod, 65:152-157, 1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90176-6
  4. Ellis E, 3rd, McNamara JA, Jr. : Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 42:295-305, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90109-5
  5. Gautam P, Valiathan A, Adhikari R : Maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion: A finite element analysis of sutural stresses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136:361-366, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.02.021
  6. Kim SE, Yang KH : Case reports on treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion with RME and facemask J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 25:604-612, 1998.
  7. Lee SH : Diagnosis and treatment of Class III malocclusion in children. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 34:725-740, 2007.
  8. McNamara J, Brudon W : Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Shinhung International Publishing, 2004.
  9. Kim JH, Viana MA, Graber TM, et al. : The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a metaanalysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 115:675-685, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70294-5
  10. Rossi M, Rossi A, Abrao J : Skeletal alterations associated with the use of bonded rapid maxillary expansion appliance. Braz Dent J, 22:334-339, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402011000400013
  11. Ngan P, Cheung E, Wei SHY : Comparison of Protraction Facemask Response Using Banded and Bonded Expansion Appliances as Anchorage. Seminars in Orthodontics, 13:175-185, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2007.05.003
  12. Lione R, Franchi L, Cozza P : Does rapid maxillary expansion induce adverse effects in growing subjects? Angle Orthod, 83:172-182, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2319/041012-300.1
  13. Asanza S, Cisneros GJ, Nieberg LG : Comparison of Hyrax and bonded expansion appliances. Angle Orthod, 67:15-22, 1997.
  14. Reed N, Ghosh J, Nanda RS : Comparison of treatment outcomes with banded and bonded RPE appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 116:31-40, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70300-8
  15. Sar C, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Uckan S, et al. : Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139:636-649, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.039
  16. Nielsen IL : Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 95:422-431, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90304-1
  17. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO : Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 133:440-449, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.011
  18. Lee NK, Yang IH, Baek SH : The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod, 82:846-852, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2319/090811-584.1
  19. Feng X, Li J, Li Y, et al. : Effectiveness of TADanchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition. Angle Orthod, 82:1107-1114, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2319/111411-705.1
  20. Cha BK, Choi DS, Ngan P, et al. : Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139:99-112, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.025
  21. Baek SH, Kim KW, Choi JY : New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage. Angle Orthod, 80:783-791, 2010. https://doi.org/10.2319/073009-435.1

Cited by

  1. Lateral Cephalometric Measurements of Class I Malocclusion Patients with Uncertainty vol.45, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.1.65