Treatment with facemask and removable upper appliance versus modified tandem traction bow appliance: the effects on mandibular space

• Published in: European journal of orthodontics 2018-07, Vol.40 (4), p.372-377
• Main Authors: Tortop, Tuba, Kaygisiz, Emine, Erkun, Safak, Yuksel, Sema
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Cephalometry - methods; Child; Dentistry; Extraoral Traction Appliances; Female; Humans; Incisor - pathology; Male; Malocclusion, Angle Class III - pathology; Malocclusion, Angle Class III - therapy; Mandible - pathology; Molar - pathology; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Movement Techniques - instrumentation; Traction
• ISSN: 0141-5387; 1460-2210
• DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjx073

Summary Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the mandibular arch posterior space changes in Class III patients treated with facemask (FM) with removable upper appliance or modified tandem traction bow appliance (MTTBA). Methods Pre- and post-treatment and pre- and post-observation lateral cephalograms of 76 subjects with skeletal and dental Class III malocclusion from the period 2000–10 years formed the materials of this study. In the first group, 25 patients (10 girls, 15 boys; mean age: 10 years, 1 month) were treated with MTTBA. The average treatment time was 12 months. In the second group, 26 patients were treated (13 girls, 13 boys; mean age: 10 years, 4 months) with a Delaire-type FM. The average treatment time was 13 months. The remaining 25 children (9 girls, 16 boys; mean age: 9 years, 8 months) were observed without treatment for 10 months. ANOVA, Duncan, and paired t-tests were used for statistical evaluation. Results Although ramus width and mandibular posterior space increased significantly in all groups, no significant differences were found among the groups. Significant increase in tipping of lower molar (L6/GoMe) in the MTTBA group showed a significant difference compared with the FM and control groups. Significant retroclination of the lower incisors (L1/NB) in the MTTBA and FM treatment groups was significantly different compared with the control group. Retroclination of lower incisors in the MTTBA group was significantly greater than that in the FM group. Conclusions FM and MTTBA treatment approaches did not affect the dimensions of posterior space. Limitations To generalize the results of this study, long term evaluation by considering the third molar position should be done.