Keles Ahmet, Tokmak Ebru Cetinkaya, Erverdi Nejat, Nanda Ravindra
Department of Orthodontics, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Angle Orthod. 2002 Oct;72(5):387-96. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0387:EOVTFD>2.0.CO;2.
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of varying the force direction on maxillary protraction. A total of 20 patients with class III maxillary retrognathism were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 was comprised of nine patients with a mean age of 8.58 years, and group 2 was composed of 11 patients with a mean age of 8.51 years. Both groups received a cap splint-type rapid palatal expander and the screw was activated twice a day for 10 days. After the expansion procedure the face mask protraction procedure was initiated. In group 1, we applied the force intraorally from the canine region with a forward and downward direction at a 30 degrees angle to the occlusal plane. In group 2, the force was applied extraorally 20 mm above the maxillary occlusal plane. In both groups a unilateral 500 g force was applied and the patients were instructed to wear the face mask for 16 h/d for the first three months and 12 h/d for the next three months. The Wilcoxon sign rank test was used to evaluate the effect of the two different face masks, and a Mann-Whitney U-test was carried out to evaluate the differences between the two groups. The results showed that both force systems were equally effective to protract the maxilla; however, in group I we observed that the maxilla advanced forward with a counter-clockwise rotation. In group 2 we observed an anterior translation of maxilla without rotation. The dental effects of both methods were also different. The maxillary occlusal plane did not rotate in group 1, in contrast to the clockwise rotation in group 2. The maxillary incisors were proclined slightly in group 1, but in contrast they were retroclined and extruded in group 2. In conclusion, the force application from near the center of resistance of the maxilla was an effective method to prevent the unwanted side effects, such as counter-clockwise rotation of the maxilla, in group 1. The group 2 results suggest that this method can be used effectively on patients who present as class III combined with an anterior open bite.
本研究的目的是探讨改变力的方向对上颌前牵引的影响。共有20例III类上颌后缩患者被随机分为两组。第1组由9例患者组成,平均年龄8.58岁;第2组由11例患者组成,平均年龄8.51岁。两组均佩戴帽式夹板型快速腭扩展器,每天激活螺旋2次,持续10天。扩弓程序完成后开始面罩前牵引程序。在第1组中,我们从尖牙区在口腔内施加力,方向向前下方,与咬合平面呈30度角。在第2组中,力在口腔外上颌咬合平面上方20 mm处施加。两组均施加单侧500 g的力,并指导患者在头三个月每天佩戴面罩16小时,后三个月每天佩戴12小时。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验评估两种不同面罩的效果,并进行Mann-Whitney U检验评估两组之间的差异。结果表明,两种力系统对上颌前牵引同样有效;然而,在第1组中我们观察到上颌向前推进并伴有逆时针旋转。在第2组中我们观察到上颌向前平移而无旋转。两种方法的牙齿效应也不同。与第2组的顺时针旋转相反,第1组上颌咬合平面未旋转。第1组上颌切牙轻度前倾,而第2组相反呈舌倾并伸长。总之,从靠近上颌阻力中心处施加力是预防第1组中上颌逆时针旋转等不良副作用的有效方法。第2组的结果表明,该方法可有效应用于III类合并前牙开颌的患者。