{"title":"Soft tissue evaluation after maxillary protraction with RPE or with the ALT-RAMEC protocol : A controlled 3D study.","authors":"Elvan Onem Ozbilen, Mustafa Onur Ari, Hanife Nuray Yilmaz, Sibel Biren","doi":"10.1007/s00056-022-00428-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 ± 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 ± 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 ± 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3‑matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 ± 0.26 mm, 0.3 ± 0.31 mm, 0.1 ± 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 ± 1.26 mm, -0.68 ± 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 ± 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-022-00428-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry.
Methods: Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 ± 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 ± 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 ± 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3‑matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed.
Results: While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 ± 0.26 mm, 0.3 ± 0.31 mm, 0.1 ± 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 ± 1.26 mm, -0.68 ± 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 ± 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups.
Conclusion: Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
