The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy

  • Received : 2018.04.02
  • Accepted : 2018.09.11
  • Published : 2019.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the changes in the pharyngeal airway (PA), maxillary sinus volume, and skeletal parameters after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) followed by facemask (FM) therapy. Methods: The records of 40 patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion due to maxillary retrognathism were collected, and the patients were assigned into two groups. The first group comprised 8 male and 12 female patients (mean age, $10.0{\pm}1.1years$) treated using RME/FM for an average of 10 months. The second group comprised 10 male and 10 female patients (mean age, $9.64{\pm}1.3years$) treated using Alt-RAMEC/FM for an average of 12 months. Cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before (T0) and after treatment (T1) were evaluated. Results: Regarding the skeletal effects, significant differences between the groups were the increase in ANS-HRP (perpendicular distance of ANS to the horizontal reference plane, 0.99 mm, p <0.05) in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group and the decrease in PP-SN (palatal plane to Sella-Nasion plane, $0.93^{\circ}$, p < 0.05) in the RME/FM group. Maxillary sinus volumes increased significantly in both the groups, and the increase was statistically significantly higher in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group. Although no significant intergroup differences were observed in PA volumes, both lower ($1,011.19mm^3$) and total ($1,601.21mm^3$), PA volume increased significantly in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group. Conclusions: The different expansion devices and protocols used with FM therapy do not seem to affect the forward movement of the maxilla and PA volumes. In contrast, the increase in maxillary sinus volume was greater in the Alt-RAMEC/FM protocol.

Keywords

References

  1. Keles A, Tokmak EC, Erverdi N, Nanda R. Effect of varying the force direction on maxillary orthopedic protraction. Angle Orthod 2002;72:387-96.
  2. Ellis E 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984;42:295-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90109-5
  3. Kama JD, Ozer T, Baran S. Orthodontic and orthopaedic changes associated with treatment in subjects with Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:496-502. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl011
  4. Liou EJ, Tsai WC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005;42:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-107.1
  5. Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod 2011;81:639-46. https://doi.org/10.2319/081010-473.1
  6. Oktay H, Ulukaya E. Maxillary protraction appliance effect on the size of the upper airway passage. Angle Orthod 2008;78:209-14. https://doi.org/10.2319/122806-535.1
  7. Kaygisiz E, Tuncer BB, Yuksel S, Tuncer C, Yildiz C. Effects of maxillary protraction and fixed appliance therapy on the pharyngeal airway. Angle Orthod 2009;79:660-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/072408-391.1
  8. Kilinc AS, Arslan SG, Kama JD, Ozer T, Dari O. Effects on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions of protraction and rapid palatal expansion in Class III malocclusion subjects. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:61-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm076
  9. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Arun T. Sagittal airway dimensions following maxillary protraction: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:184-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji095
  10. Hiyama S, Suda N, Ishii-Suzuki M, Tsuiki S, Ogawa M, Suzuki S, et al. Effects of maxillary protraction on craniofacial structures and upper-airway dimension. Angle Orthod 2002;72:43-7.
  11. Mucedero M, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Effects of maxillary protraction with or without expansion on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:777-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.021
  12. Pamporakis P, Nevzatoglu S, Kucukkeles N. Threedimensional alterations in pharyngeal airway and maxillary sinus volumes in Class III maxillary deficiency subjects undergoing orthopedic facemask treatment. Angle Orthod 2014;84:701-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/060513-430.1
  13. Celikoglu M, Buyukcavus MH. Changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone position after maxillary protraction with different alternate rapid maxillary expansion and construction protocols: a prospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 2017;87:519-25. https://doi.org/10.2319/082316-632.1
  14. Aboudara C, Nielsen I, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher D. Comparison of airway space with conventional lateral headfilms and 3-dimensional reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:468-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.043
  15. Yilmaz BS, Kucukkeles N. Skeletal, soft tissue, and airway changes following the alternate maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol. Angle Orthod 2014;84:868-77.
  16. Gautam P, Valiathan A, Adhikari R. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion: a finite element study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:723-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.016
  17. Canturk BH, Celikoglu M. 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 2015;85:284-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/031114-176.1
  18. The SEDENTEXCT Project. Radiation protection: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology: evidence based guidelines 2011 (v2.0 final) [Internet]. The SEDENTEXCT Project; 2011. Available from: www.sedentexct.eu/files/guidelines_final.pdf.
  19. El H, Palomo JM. Airway volume for different dentofacial skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e511-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.02.015
  20. Iwasaki T, Hayasaki H, Takemoto Y, Kanomi R, Yamasaki Y. Oropharyngeal airway in children with Class III malocclusion evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:318.e1-9; discussion 318-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.017
  21. Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70161-0
  22. Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:583-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70003-X
  23. Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:204-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70141-6
  24. Cordasco G, Matarese G, Rustico L, Fastuca S, Caprioglio A, Lindauer SJ, et al. Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:133-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12040
  25. Yuksel S, Ucem TT, Keykubat A. Early and late facemask therapy. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:559-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/23.5.559
  26. Li H, Lu X, Shi J, Shi H. Measurements of normal upper airway assessed by 3-dimensional computed tomography in Chinese children and adolescents. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75:1240-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.06.022
  27. Chen X, Liu D, Liu J, Wu Z, Xie Y, Li L, et al. Threedimensional evaluation of the upper airway morphological changes in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion treated by protraction headgear and rapid palatal expansion: a comparative research. PLoS One 2015;10:e0135273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135273
  28. Taylor M, Hans MG, Strohl KP, Nelson S, Broadbent BH. Soft tissue growth of the oropharynx. Angle Orthod 1996;66:393-400.
  29. Barghouth G, Prior JO, Lepori D, Duvoisin B, Schnyder P, Gudinchet F. Paranasal sinuses in children: size evaluation of maxillary, sphenoid, and frontal sinuses by magnetic resonance imaging and proposal of volume index percentile curves. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1451-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1218-9
  30. Park IH, Song JS, Choi H, Kim TH, Hoon S, Lee SH, et al. Volumetric study in the development of paranasal sinuses by CT imaging in Asian: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1347-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.08.018

Cited by

  1. A Bayesian network meta‐analysis of orthopaedic treatment in Class III malocclusion: Maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage or a rapid maxillary expander vol.23, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12339
  2. Relative effectiveness of facemask therapy with alternate maxillary expansion and constriction in the early treatment of Class III malocclusion vol.159, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.028
  3. Three-dimensional oropharyngeal airway changes after facemask therapy using low-dose computed tomography: a clinical trial with a retrospectively collected control group vol.22, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-021-00391-3