TY - JOUR
T1 - Orthopaedic treatment efficiency in skeletal class III malocclusions in young patients
T2 - RME-face mask versus TSME
AU - Maspero, C.
AU - Galbiati, G.
AU - Perillo, L.
AU - Favero, L.
AU - Giannini, L.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Aim To cephalometrically compare the skeletal vertical and sagittal effects of TSME with those of RME protraction facemask therapy in Class III patients. Materials and methods The sample of this retrospective study included 104 patients (53 females, 51 males) with age ranging from 5 to 9 years, presenting a skeletal Class III relationship: 52 were treated with transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) appliance (Group 1) and 52 with Hyrax rapid maxillary expander/facemask (RME/FM, Group 2). For each patient a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period (T1). Changes in the two groups during the observation period were calculated, compared and statistically analysed with t-test. Results TSME can produce skeletal changes and dento-alveolar modifications. RME in association with protraction facemask showed that after treatment the maxilla was moved significantly forward. The correction of the ANB angle was due to a change in mandibular position during treatment which showed a backward and downward rotation. Conclusion Both devices were effective in the treatment of subjects with skeletal Class III due to maxillary retrusion.
AB - Aim To cephalometrically compare the skeletal vertical and sagittal effects of TSME with those of RME protraction facemask therapy in Class III patients. Materials and methods The sample of this retrospective study included 104 patients (53 females, 51 males) with age ranging from 5 to 9 years, presenting a skeletal Class III relationship: 52 were treated with transverse sagittal maxillary expander (TSME) appliance (Group 1) and 52 with Hyrax rapid maxillary expander/facemask (RME/FM, Group 2). For each patient a lateral cephalogram was obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period (T1). Changes in the two groups during the observation period were calculated, compared and statistically analysed with t-test. Results TSME can produce skeletal changes and dento-alveolar modifications. RME in association with protraction facemask showed that after treatment the maxilla was moved significantly forward. The correction of the ANB angle was due to a change in mandibular position during treatment which showed a backward and downward rotation. Conclusion Both devices were effective in the treatment of subjects with skeletal Class III due to maxillary retrusion.
KW - Facemask therapy
KW - Rme
KW - Tsme
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866531758&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866531758&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 22971261
AN - SCOPUS:84866531758
SN - 1591-996X
VL - 13
SP - 225
EP - 230
JO - European journal of paediatric dentistry : official journal of European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry
JF - European journal of paediatric dentistry : official journal of European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry
IS - 3
ER -