Pangrazio-Kulbersh Valmy, Berger Jeffrey L, Janisse Francis N, Bayirli Burcu
School of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Mich, USA.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jan;131(1):7.e9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.024.
The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was 3-fold: (1) to compare the effects and long-term stability of protraction facemask treatment with untreated Class III controls, (2) to compare the long-term stability of early protraction facemask treatment with later surgical maxillary advancement with LeFort I osteotomy, and (3) to determine whether early intervention with protraction facemask is an effective treatment modality or whether surgical treatment after cessation of growth should be advocated.
The sample consisted of 34 consecutively treated white patients with Class III malocclusions characterized by maxillary deficiency. The protraction sample consisted of 17 children (8 boys, 9 girls). The surgical sample consisted of 17 adults (10 men, 7 women). The protraction group was also compared with a control group of white subjects with untreated Class III malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1 (initial records), T2 (end of functional appliance treatment or 2 weeks postsurgery), and T3 (7 years 6 months postprotraction or 1 year 5 months postsurgery). Means and standard deviations were calculated for descriptive cephalometric measurements. ANOVA was used to assess the differences between and within the protraction and surgery groups at T1, T2, and T3. The Tukey studentized range test was performed to determine the source of the difference. In addition, paired t tests were used to compare the differences between the protraction group and the matched controls as well as between the surgery group and the matched controls.
In the protraction group, there was continued favorable growth of the maxilla, even after the removal of the protraction facemask. From T2 to T3, the maxilla continued to move anteriorly in the protraction patients more so than in the control groups, which had decreases in the intermaxillary measurements (ANB angle and Wits appraisal) over time. The surgical group remained stable from T2 to T3 in all measurements studied.
The most striking findings of this study were the general similarity between the protraction and the surgical groups at T3 and the overall stability of both treatment modalities over time.
这项回顾性头影测量研究的目的有三个:(1)比较前牵引面罩治疗与未经治疗的III类对照的效果和长期稳定性;(2)比较早期前牵引面罩治疗与后期采用LeFort I截骨术进行上颌骨前移手术的长期稳定性;(3)确定早期使用前牵引面罩进行干预是否是一种有效的治疗方式,或者是否应提倡在生长停止后进行手术治疗。
样本包括34例连续接受治疗的患有上颌骨发育不足的III类错牙合畸形的白人患者。前牵引样本由17名儿童(8名男孩,9名女孩)组成。手术样本由17名成年人(10名男性,7名女性)组成。前牵引组还与一组未经治疗的III类错牙合畸形白人对照组进行了比较。在T1(初始记录)、T2(功能性矫治器治疗结束时或术后2周)和T3(前牵引后7年6个月或术后1年5个月)拍摄侧位头影测量片。计算描述性头影测量的均值和标准差。采用方差分析评估前牵引组和手术组在T1、T2和T3时组间和组内的差异。进行Tukey学生化极差检验以确定差异来源。此外,采用配对t检验比较前牵引组与匹配对照组之间以及手术组与匹配对照组之间的差异。
在前牵引组中,即使在前牵引面罩去除后,上颌骨仍持续有良好的生长。从T2到T3,前牵引患者的上颌骨继续向前移动,比对照组更明显,对照组的颌间测量值(ANB角和Wits评估)随时间减少。手术组在研究的所有测量指标上从T2到T3保持稳定。
本研究最显著的发现是T3时前牵引组和手术组之间的总体相似性以及两种治疗方式随时间的总体稳定性。