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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |