Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the soft and hard tissue effects of two different protraction mechanisms in class III patients: a randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the present study is to test the null hypotheses that there were no significant differences for hard and soft tissue changes induced by mini maxillary protractor (MMP) and face mask and rapid maxillary expansion (FM/RME).

Materials and methods

Thirty-two patients who met the criteria were randomly divided into two groups: 16 patients (males/females 7/9) in the MMP group and 16 patients (males/females 6/10) in the FM/RME group. The patients in both groups were instructed to wear the appliances for at least 20 h per day until a 2-mm positive overjet was achieved. Hard and soft tissue profile changes observed by MMP and FM/RME were compared using paired and Student’s t tests.

Results

Class III malocclusion and negative overjet were improved by means of skeletal changes in conjunction with upper incisor proclination and lower incisor retroclination in both groups. Maxilla and surrounding soft tissues (SNA, Ls-E, and Ls-PMV) were significantly moved anteriorly with less rotation of the palatal plane in the MMP group. Mandibular incisors were found to be more retrusive in the FM/RME group (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Both groups showed similar effects except more anterior movement of the maxilla and surrounding soft tissues with less rotation of the palatal plane and retrusion of lower incisors in the MMP group.

Clinical relevance

This is the first study to compare the soft and hard tissue changes induced by MMP appliance with a conventional FM /RME.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fu M, Zhang D, Wang B, Deng Y, Wang F, Ye X (2002) The prevalence of malocclusion in China—an investigation of 25,392 children. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 37:371–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Irie M, Nakamura S (1975) Orthopedic Approach to severe skeletal Class-III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac 67:377–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guyer EC, Ellis EE 3rd, McNamara JA Jr (1986) Behrents RG. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod 56:7–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kilic N, Catal G, Kiki A, Oktay H (2010) Soft tissue profile changes following maxillary protraction in Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 32:419–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell PM (1983) The dilemma of Class III treatment. Early or late? Angle Orthod 53:175–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sung SJ, Baik HS (1998) Assessment of skeletal and dental changes by maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac 114:492–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ucuncu N, Ucem TT, Yuksel S (2000) A comparison of chincap and maxillary protraction appliances in the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 22:43–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuksel S, Ucem TT, Keykubat A (2001) Early and late facemask therapy. Eur J Orthod 23:559–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alcan T, Keles A, Erverdi N (2000) The effects of a modified protraction headgear on maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofac 117:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Altug Z, Arslan AD (2005) A mini-maxillary protractor for Class III correction. J Clin Orthod 39:522–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A (2000) Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to Class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac 118:549–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kilic N, Celikoglu M, Oktay H (2010) Effects of the functional regulator III on profile changes in subjects with maxillary deficiency. Eur J Orthod 32:729–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kilic N, Celikoglu M, Oktay H (2011) Effects of the functional regulator III on transversal changes: a postero-anterior cephalometric and model study. Eur J Orthod 33:727–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kilicoglu H, Kirlic Y (1998) Profile changes in patients with class III malocclusions after Delaire mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac 113:453–62

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO (2008) Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofac 133:440–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Celikoglu M, Oktay H (2014) Effects of maxillary protraction for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 36:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Altug Z, Akcam OU (2010) Treatment of a young adult with Class III malocclusion using a modified mini maxillary protractor: a case report. J Oral Sci 52:155–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altug Z, Arslan AD (2006) Skeletal and dental effects of a mini maxillary protraction appliance. Angle Orthod 76:360–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Houston WJ (1983) The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 83:382–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee NK, Yang IH, Baek SH (2012) 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 82:846–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baccetti T, McGill JS, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr (1998) Tollaro I. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac 113:333–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baik HS (1995) Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofac 108:583–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Haas AJ (1965) The treatment of maxillary deficiency by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 35:200–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kurt G, Uysal T, Yagci A (2010) Soft and hard tissue profile changes after rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy. World J Orthod 11:e10–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McNamara JA Jr (1987) An orthopedic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusion in young patients. J Clin Orthod 21:598–608

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Turley PK (1988) Orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion with palatal expansion and custom protraction headgear. J Clin Orthod 22:314–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arman A, Ufuk Toygar T, Abuhijleh E (2006) Evaluation of maxillary protraction and fixed appliance therapy in Class III patients. Eur J Orthod 28:383–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH (1996) Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protraction. Eur J Orthod 18:151–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shanker S, Ngan P, Wade D, Beck M, Yiu C, Hagg U et al (1996) Cephalometric A point changes during and after maxillary protraction and expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac 110:423–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarver DM, Johnston MW (1989) Skeletal changes in vertical and anterior displacement of the maxilla with bonded rapid palatal expansion appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95:462–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH (1996) Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac 109:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yavuz I, Halicioglu K, Ceylan I (2009) Face mask therapy effects in two skeletal maturation groups of female subjects with skeletal Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 79:842–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH (1997) Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofac 112:292–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cha BK, Choi DS, Ngan P, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Kim SM, Jang IS (2011) Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofac 139:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Canturk BH, Celikoglu M (2014) Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure. Angle Orthod

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author contribution

Mevlut Celikoglu treated the patients, planned the study, and documented the article. Ibrahim Yavuz treated the patients, performed the statistical analyses, and revised article. Tuba Unal collected the data, performed the measurements, and prepared the figures and tables. Husamettin Oktay planned and edited the article and helped for revision. Abdulvahit Erdem edited the article and helped for revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

    Mevlut Celikoglu

  2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Ibrahim Yavuz

  3. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

    Tuba Unal

  4. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Husamettin Oktay

  5. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

    Abdulvahit Erdem

Authors
  1. Mevlut Celikoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim Yavuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tuba Unal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Husamettin Oktay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdulvahit Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mevlut Celikoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Celikoglu, M., Yavuz, I., Unal, T. et al. Comparison of the soft and hard tissue effects of two different protraction mechanisms in class III patients: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 19, 2115–2122 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1408-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1408-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation