A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion
- 1 January 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation) in The Angle Orthodontist
- Vol. 82 (1) , 96-101
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Reverse Twin-Block therapy (RTB) and protraction face mask treatment (PFM) with respect to an untreated control in the correction of developing Class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparative study of subjects treated cases with either PFM (n = 9) or RTB (n = 13) and untreated matched controls (n = 10) was performed. Both the PFM and control group samples were derived from a previously conducted clinical trial, and the RTB group was formed of consecutively treated cases. The main outcome variables assessed were skeletal and dental changes. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the start and end of treatment or during the observation period. Analysis of variance was used to compare changes in cephalometric variables arising during the study period in the lateral group. Linear regression analysis and an unpaired t -test were used to determine the impacts of treatment duration and gender, respectively. Results: Significantly greater skeletal changes arose with PFM therapy than with RTB therapy or in the control group (SNA, SNB, and ANB; P < .001). The dentoalveolar effects of RTB therapy exceeded those of PFM treatment, with significantly more maxillary incisor proclination ( P < .001) and mandibular incisor retroclination ( P < .006) arising with treatment. Conclusions: Both appliances are capable of correction of Class III dental relationships; however, the relative skeletal and dental contributions differ. Skeletal effects, chiefly anterior maxillary translation, predominated with PFM therapy. The RTB appliance induced Class III correction, primarily as a result of dentoalveolar effects.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansionThe Angle Orthodontist, 2010
- Is early class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15‐month follow‐upJournal of Orthodontics, 2010
- Cephalometric variables to predict future success of early orthopedic Class III treatmentAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2005
- Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliancesAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2004
- Cephalometric variables predicting the long-term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2004
- Class III Twin Blocks: a case seriesJournal of Orthodontics, 2003
- Cephalometric and occlusal changes following maxillary expansion and protractionEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1998
- Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxillaAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1997
- Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protractionEuropean Journal of Orthodontics, 1996
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986