Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure

Creative Commons License

Canturk B. H., Celikoglu M.

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, cilt.85, sa.2, ss.284-291, 2015 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 85 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2015
  • Doi Numarası: 10.2319/031114-176.1
  • Dergi Adı: ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.284-291
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Class III, Maxillary protraction, Alt-RAMEC, Face mask, CLASS-III MALOCCLUSION, SKELETAL MATURATION GROUPS, FUNCTIONAL REGULATOR III, PALATAL EXPANSION, PROFILE CHANGES, PROTRACTION, THERAPY
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that there were significant differences for skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes induced by face mask (FM) started simultaneously and after an alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) procedure.

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that there were significant differences for skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes induced by face mask (FM) started simultaneously and after an alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) procedure.

Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients with Class III malocclusion due to maxillary deficiency were randomly assigned to Group I (FM started after the completion of the Alt-RAMEC) and Group II (FM started simultaneously with the Alt-RAMEC). The screw of the RME appliance was alternately activated and deactivated twice daily (0.20 mm per turn) for 1 week over the course of 8 weeks. The changes observed in both groups were assessed using the cephalometric lateral films and statistically evaluated using the paired t-test and Student's t-test.

Results: Thirty patients completed the present prospective study. No significant differences were observed between the groups. Class Ill malocclusion and negative overjet were improved by means of skeletal changes in conjunction with upper incisor proclination in both groups. Skeletal contribution to overjet correction in Groups I and II was 91.70% and 86.10%, respectively. Maxilla showed a forward movement of 3.84 mm and 3.02 mm in Groups I and II, respectively.

Conclusions: The null hypothesis was rejected. Both groups showed similar results, and, thus, waiting until completion of the Alt-RAMEC procedure for the FM treatment is not necessary.