采用两种不同功能矫治器治疗骨性Ⅲ类错牙合畸形的临床研究

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2023.05.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of maxillary protraction and Twin-block magnetic appliance in the treatment of mild-to-moderate skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion in the late stage of mixed dentition or early permanent teeth stage. Methods A total of 40 patients with mild-to-moderate skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion in thelate stage of mixed dentition or early permanent teeth stage were randomly divided into three groups. The first group of 20 patients received treatment with maxillary protraction appliance and the second group of 20 patients received treatment with Twin-block magnetic appliance. Sixteen patients in the third group with mild-to-moderate skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion who did not initiate treatment but were regularly followed up were selected as the control group, with an average age of 9 years and 5 months. Twenty cephalometric measurements were selected and the changes before and after treatment were analyzed by variance analysis and least-significant difference (LSD) test. Results There were significant statistical differences between group Ⅰ, group Ⅱ and the control group Ⅲ. Seven cephalometric measurements were significantly different between group Ⅰ and group Ⅱ(P<0.05). In the maxillary protraction group, the inclination of anterior teeth was increased; the overjet of anterior teeth and the molar relationship was improved. In the Twin-block magnetic appliance group, the A point moved down less; the mandibular plane(SNL-ML)rotated clockwise less, and the maxillary incisors erupted vertically more. Conclusion Both maxillary protraction and Twin-block magnetic appliance can promote maxillary development, but Twin-block magnetic appliance has more advantages in preventing labial inclination of anterior teeth and mesial movement of anchorage molars than maxillary protraction.

Key words: maxillary protraction, Twin-block magnetic appliance, skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion

CLC Number:

R783.5

YANG Ren,MA Qiaoling,LIN Shuang,LI Guifeng. A clinical study of two different functional appliances of skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion[J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(5): 460-464.

Figures/Tables 3

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

References 20

[1]	Liu C, Qiao X, Zhang S, et al. Banded versus modified applian-ces for anchorage during maxillary protraction[J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2020, 81(3):172-182. doi: 10.1007/s00056-019-00214-5
[2]	孙瑞, 阿迪拉·帕热哈提, 左森, 等. 青少年骨性Ⅲ类错牙合畸形的早期矫治[J]. 全科口腔医学电子杂志, 2018, 5(32):34-38.
[3]	Lee WC, Shieh YS, Liao YF, et al. Long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion:A meta-analysis and meta-regression[J]. PLoS One, 2021, 16(2):e0247027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247027
[4]	Lee WC, Shieh YS, Liao YF, et al. Long-term maxillary three dimensional changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion:A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Dent Sci, 2021, 16(1):168-177. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.016
[5]	Pavoni C, Gazzani F, Franchi L, et al. Soft tissue facial profile in Class Ⅲ malocclusion:Long-term post-pubertal effects produced by the Face Mask Protocol[J]. Eur J Orthod, 2019, 41(5):531-536. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjz003
[6]	Liang SR, Wang F, Chang Q, et al. Three-dimensional comparative evaluation of customized bone-anchored vs tooth-borne maxillary protraction in patients with skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2021, 160(3):374-384. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.034
[7]	Clemente R, Contardo L, Greco C, et al. Class Ⅲ treatment with skeletal and dental anchorage:A review of comparative effects[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2018, 2018:7946019.
[8]	Lin YF, Fu Z, Guo RZ, et al. Maxillary protraction therapy in class Ⅲ patients with and without cleft lip and palate:An interim report of a prospective comparative study[J]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 2021, 58(4):429-437. doi: 10.1177/1055665620954058
[9]	Miranda F, Cunha Bastos JCD, Magno Dos Santos A, et al. Dentoskeletal comparison of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction with hybrid and conventional hyrax expanders:A randomized clinical trial[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2021, 160(6):774-783. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.02.017
[10]	薛慧, 王小明, 郑军, 等. 双阻板磁力矫治器对骨性Ⅲ类错牙合畸形的早期治疗效果[J]. 中华医学美学美容杂志, 2018, 24(2):97-100.
[11]	Zhao N, Xu Y, Chen YX, et al. Effects of Class Ⅲ magnetic orthopedic forces on the craniofacial sutures of rhesus monkeys[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 2008, 133(3):401-409. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.035
[12]	Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, et al. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols:Tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment[J]. Prog Orthod, 2015, 16:26. doi: 10.1186/s40510-015-0096-7
[13]	Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish schoolchildren[J]. Scand J Dent Res, 1973, 81(1):12-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1973.tb01489.x pmid: 4510864
[14]	Baccetti T, McGill JS, Franchi L, et al. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class Ⅲ malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1998, 113(3):333-343. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70306-3
[15]	Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Hirose K, et al. Effective treatment plan for maxillary protraction:Is the bone age useful to determine the treatment plan?[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 118(1):55-62. doi: 10.1067/mod.2000.104491
[16]	Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A. Comparison of orthodontic and orthopedic effects of a modified maxillary protractor between deciduous and early mixed dentitions[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2004, 126(1):23-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.04.014
[17]	张珊, 葛晓磊, 李杰, 等. 上颌前方牵引矫治对颌骨生长发育长期影响的Meta分析[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2022, 49(5):548-555.
[18]	MacDonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK. Cephalometric changes after the correction of Class Ⅲ malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1999, 116(1):13-24. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70298-2
[19]	Nartallo-Turley PE, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class Ⅲmalocclusion[J]. Angle Orthod, 1998, 68(3):217-224. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068<0217:CEOCPE>2.3.CO;2 pmid: 9622758
[20]	de Souza RA, RinoNeto J, de Paiva JB. Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in Class Ⅲ patients:A non-randomized clinical trial[J]. Prog Orthod, 2019, 20(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0288-7

变量	治疗前后差值			P
变量	Ⅲ组	Ⅰ组	Ⅱ组	Ⅰ vs. Ⅱ vs. Ⅲ	Ⅰ vs. Ⅲ	Ⅱ vs. Ⅲ	Ⅰ vs. Ⅱ
矢状向
OLp-A/mm	0.79±0.17	1.51±1.46	1.53±1.40	0.042^*	0.025^*	0.031^*	0.813
OLp-Pg/mm	1.07±0.06	0.07±2.17	-0.14±3.11	0.031^*	0.018^*	0.012^*	0.258
wits/mm	0.26±0.01	2.45±2.75	2.57±2.41	0.042^*	0.002^*	<0.001^*	0.726
OLp-Is/mm	1.32±0.24	3.44±1.46	2.19±2.67	0.019^*	0.012^*	0.015^*	0.026^*
OLp-Ii/mm	1.22±0.17	-2.18±2.50	-1.26±2.50	0.028^*	0.013^*	0.007^*	0.198
覆盖/mm	0.10±0.08	5.63±2.08	3.45±2.53	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	<0.001^*	0.002^*
OLp-Ms/mm	1.25±0.14	2.60±1.67	2.44±1.92	0.036^*	0.019^*	0.013^*	0.492
OLp-Mi/mm	1.22±0.11	-0.09±0.66	1.42±3.04	0.047^*	0.032^*	0.298	0.067
磨牙关系/mm	0.10±0.19	2.63±1.74	1.28±2.18	0.013^*	<0.001^*	0.019^*	0.015^*
SNA/(°)	0.28±0.26	0.67±2.00	1.57±2.39	0.046^*	0.033^*	0.025^*	0.253
SNB/(°)	0.52±0.26	-1.67±1.77	-0.80±2.25	0.037^*	0.013^*	0.018^*	0.136
ANB/(°)	-0.23±0.07	2.35±1.87	1.94±2.48	0.048^*	0.009^*	0.006^*	0.687
垂直向
OL parallel-A/mm	1.88±0.27	3.03±2.27	1.48±1.67	0.039^*	0.029^*	0.045^*	0.012^*
Is-NL/mm	0.83±0.03	0.31±1.53	2.17±2.83	0.019^*	0.028^*	0.012^*	0.014^*
Ii-ML/mm	0.67±0.31	0.76±2.49	1.27±2.03	0.047^*	0.249	0.029^*	0.502
Msc-NL/mm	0.47±0.51	1.27±2.07	1.56±2.37	0.038^*	0.023^*	0.029^*	0.553
Mic-ML/mm	0.30±0.21	0.96±1.57	1.19±1.59	0.045^*	0.035^*	0.027^*	0.487
SNL-ML/(°)	0.49±0.05	3.25±1.44	0.24±2.95	0.029^*	0.008^*	0.039^*	0.006^*
U1-NL/(°)	0.43±0.15	1.33±10.75	1.03±3.25	0.043^*	0.045^*	0.033^*	0.194
L1-ML/(°)	0.36±1.37	-3.94±4.67	2.26±2.97	0.012^*	0.019^*	0.007^*	0.019^*

A clinical study of two different functional appliances of skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 20

Related Articles 11

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	CAI Guanhui,GUAN Zhaolan,LI Gen,WANG Hua,ZHANG Weibing. Differences in efficacy between orthodontic-first and surgery-first models for skeletal Class Ⅲ patients [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(4): 317-321.
[2]	DU Ying, WANG Xiaoqin, REN Juan. CBCT analysis of condylar and occlusal plane features in skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion patients with mandibular asymmetry [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(3): 228-232.
[3]	HU Wenjing, YU Fei, GONG Guoliang, ZOU Mingyuan, LIN Xinping. Progress of research on alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(12): 1144-1148.
[4]	Ling ZHU. Research progress of maxillary protraction with miniscrew implant in treatment of skeletal Class Ⅲ malocclusion caused by maxillary deficiency [J]. , 2019, 39(9): 844-848.
[5]	. Orthodontic treatment of an adult patient with mandibular deviation and temporomandibular joint disorder — a case report [J]. , 2018, 38(5): 453-456.
[6]	. Cephalometric variables to predict prognosis of early Class III malocclusion treated by face mask [J]. , 2018, 38(4): 342-345.
[7]	. Finite element analysis of anchorage stability in maxillary protraction assisted by modified miniplate implants [J]. , 2018, 38(12): 1102-1105.
[8]	. Three-dimensional finite element analysisi on the displacement trend of maxilla using two types of modified miniplate implants to assist maxillary protraction treatment [J]. , 2018, 38(12): 1096-1101.
[9]	Juan DU. Clinical effect analysis of early treatment to skeletal class Ill high angle with the tongue thrust habit cases by maxillary protraction and tongue crib [J]. , 2016, 36(9): 809-812.
[10]	. A comparative study on maxillary protraction therapy with two different methods of rapid palatal expansion [J]. , 2015, 35(9): 767-769.
[11]	. Orthodontic treatment for adult patients with palatally and horizontally impacted maxillary canine in skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion [J]. , 2013, 33(8): 551-554.