Cargando…

A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The reverse pull headgear has been widely used to intercept a developing skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency. Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is recommended along with the reverse pull headgear because there is disruption of the circummaxillary and intermax...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parayaruthottam, Prathapan, Antony, Vincy, Francis, P. G., Roshan, Gazanafer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30123764
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_66_18
_version_ 1783343859428753408
author Parayaruthottam, Prathapan
Antony, Vincy
Francis, P. G.
Roshan, Gazanafer
author_facet Parayaruthottam, Prathapan
Antony, Vincy
Francis, P. G.
Roshan, Gazanafer
author_sort Parayaruthottam, Prathapan
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The reverse pull headgear has been widely used to intercept a developing skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency. Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is recommended along with the reverse pull headgear because there is disruption of the circummaxillary and intermaxillary sutures. This, in turn, expedites the orthopedic effect of the reverse pull headgear. However, studies have shown that the circummaxillary sutures may not be fully disrupted by the use of RME alone. The protocol of alternate RME and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) has been found to produce much more beneficial effects. Hence, this retrospective study was conducted to compare and assess the results obtained in the two methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study comprised pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of two groups of nine patients each (total 18 patients – 10 females and 8 males) having skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB<0°) due to a retrognathic maxilla with or without associated mandibular prognathism treated at the Department of Orthodontics of a teaching institute in Kerala. The patients were treated with either Alt-RAMEC/protraction or RME/protraction. The statistical analysis of the data was done using statistical package SPSS Version 16 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue parameters in Group 2 (Alt-RAMEC group) showed very significant changes with the maxilla moving forward, mandible rotating backward and downward, and proclination of the maxillary incisors when compared to Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: It may be concluded from the results of our study that the Alt-RAMEC protocol and reverse pull headgear might be more effective than conventional RME and the reverse pull headgear to correct a retruded maxilla in a developing skeletal Class III patient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6071362
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60713622018-08-17 A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Parayaruthottam, Prathapan Antony, Vincy Francis, P. G. Roshan, Gazanafer J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Original Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The reverse pull headgear has been widely used to intercept a developing skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency. Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is recommended along with the reverse pull headgear because there is disruption of the circummaxillary and intermaxillary sutures. This, in turn, expedites the orthopedic effect of the reverse pull headgear. However, studies have shown that the circummaxillary sutures may not be fully disrupted by the use of RME alone. The protocol of alternate RME and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) has been found to produce much more beneficial effects. Hence, this retrospective study was conducted to compare and assess the results obtained in the two methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study comprised pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of two groups of nine patients each (total 18 patients – 10 females and 8 males) having skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB<0°) due to a retrognathic maxilla with or without associated mandibular prognathism treated at the Department of Orthodontics of a teaching institute in Kerala. The patients were treated with either Alt-RAMEC/protraction or RME/protraction. The statistical analysis of the data was done using statistical package SPSS Version 16 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue parameters in Group 2 (Alt-RAMEC group) showed very significant changes with the maxilla moving forward, mandible rotating backward and downward, and proclination of the maxillary incisors when compared to Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: It may be concluded from the results of our study that the Alt-RAMEC protocol and reverse pull headgear might be more effective than conventional RME and the reverse pull headgear to correct a retruded maxilla in a developing skeletal Class III patient. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 2018-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6071362/ /pubmed/30123764 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_66_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Parayaruthottam, Prathapan
Antony, Vincy
Francis, P. G.
Roshan, Gazanafer
A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title_full A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title_fullStr A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title_full_unstemmed A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title_short A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion
title_sort retrospective evaluation of conventional rapid maxillary expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocol combined with protraction headgear in the management of developing skeletal class iii malocclusion
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30123764
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_66_18
work_keys_str_mv AT parayaruthottamprathapan aretrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT antonyvincy aretrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT francispg aretrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT roshangazanafer aretrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT parayaruthottamprathapan retrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT antonyvincy retrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT francispg retrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion
AT roshangazanafer retrospectiveevaluationofconventionalrapidmaxillaryexpansionversusalternaterapidmaxillaryexpansionandconstrictionprotocolcombinedwithprotractionheadgearinthemanagementofdevelopingskeletalclassiiimalocclusion