» Articles » PMID: 10629517

The Effects of a Modified Protraction Headgear on Maxilla

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2000 Jan 12
PMID 10629517
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Protraction headgears are commonly used in the treatment of Class III malocclusion characterized by maxillary retrognathism. The upward and forward rotation of the maxilla during protraction is a major unwanted side effect. The aim of this study was to eliminate the upward and forward rotation of maxilla while protracting. Seventeen patients with Class III malocclusion as a result of maxillary retrognathism were treated for 3 months; their average age was 12.81 years. A full coverage acrylic cap splint-type rapid maxillary expansion appliance was cemented and activated twice a day for 5 days. After sutural separation, a maxillary modified protraction headgear was worn and 750 g of force was applied. Wilcoxon signed rank test was carried out to evaluate 42 parameters measured on cephalometric radiographs. The maxilla was displaced anteriorly by downward and backward rotation. The mandible was displaced downward and backward due to anterior elongation of the maxilla. Extrusion and lingual tipping of the upper incisors and intrusion of upper molars and downward and backward rotation of functional occlusal plane were observed. The aim of our study was achieved, which was to avoid upward and forward rotation while protracting the maxilla. In conclusion, maxillary modified protraction headgear (MMPH) can be used effectively in Class III patients with retrognathic maxilla and anterior open bite tendency.

Citing Articles

Comparison of the Changes Following Two Treatment Approaches: Rapid Maxillary Expansion Versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction.

Celebi F, Celikdelen M Turk J Orthod. 2020; 33(1):1-7.

PMID: 32284892 PMC: 7138235. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19023.


Stress on facial skin of class III subjects during maxillary protraction: a finite element analysis.

Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Cozza P, Lione R BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1):31.

PMID: 30760252 PMC: 6374895. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0724-6.


Photogrammetric Comparison of Facial Soft Tissue Profile before and after Protraction Facemask Therapy in Class III Children (6-11 Years Old).

Moshkelgosha V, Raoof A, Sardarian A, Salehi P J Dent (Shiraz). 2017; 18(1):7-16.

PMID: 28280754 PMC: 5338179.


Alternative treatment for open bite Class III malocclusion in a child with Williams-Beuren syndrome.

Vieira G, Franco E, da Rocha D, Alves de Oliveira L, Amorim R Dental Press J Orthod. 2015; 20(1):97-107.

PMID: 25741831 PMC: 4373022. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.1.097-107.oar.


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

Celikoglu M, Yavuz I, Unal T, Oktay H, Erdem A Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19(8):2115-22.

PMID: 25711173 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1408-5.