medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2017, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2017; 5 (3)

Management of a class III malocclusion with facemask therapy anchoraged with TADs and orthodontic treatment. Case report

Ramos ZL, Grageda NE

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 176-183
PDF size: 534.56 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Excessive mandibular growth, an underdeveloped maxilla or the combination of both may cause class III malocclusions. Treatment success in this kind of cases depends largely on the age of the patient since if not treated timely, the only alternative is a surgical-orthodontic treatment. Hereunder, the case of a 12-year-old patient, skeletal CIII with anterior crossbite treated with a facemask anchored to mini-implants is presented.


REFERENCES

  1. Delaire J. Maxillary development revisited: relevance to the orthopaedic treatment of Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19 (3): 289-311.

  2. Wlls AP, Sarver DM, Proffit WR. Long-term efficacy of reverse pull headgear therapy. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76 (6): 915-922.

  3. McNamara JA. Mixed dentition treatment. In: Graver TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics-current principles and techniques. St Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1994.

  4. Westwood PV, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Sarver DM. Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123 (3): 306-320.

  5. Ghiz MA, Ngan P, Gunel E. Cephalometric variables to predict future success of early orthopedic Class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127 (3): 301-306.

  6. Pérez-García LM, Garmas-Castillo Y. Mini implantes una opción para el anclaje en ortodoncia. Gaceta Médica Espirituana. 2011; 13 (3).

  7. Block MS, Hoffman DR. A new device for absolute anchorage for orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107 (3): 251-258.

  8. Lee JS, Kim KK, Park YC, Vanarsdall RL. Applications of orthodontic miniimplants. Canadá: Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc.; 2007.

  9. Parr JA, Garetto LP, Wohlford ME, Arbuckle GR, Roberts WE. Sutural expansion using rigidly integrated endosseous implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Angle Orthod. 1997; 67 (4): 283-290.

  10. De Clerck HJ, Proffit WR. Growth modification of the face: A current perspective with emphasis on class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148 (1): 37-46.

  11. Kyung SH, Hong SG, Park YC. Distalization of maxillary molars with a midpalatal miniscrew. J Clin Orthod. 2003; 37 (1): 22-26.

  12. Henriksen B, Bavitz B, Kelly B, Harn SD. Evaluation of bone thickness in the anterior hard palate relative to midsagittal orthodontic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18 (4): 578-581.

  13. Björk A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983; 5 (1): 1-46.

  14. Björk A, Skieller V. Growth of the maxilla in three dimensions as revealed radiographically by the implant method. Br J Orthod. 1977; 4 (2): 53-64.

  15. Buschang PH, LaPalme L, Tanguay R, Demirjian A: The technical reliability of superimposition on cranial base and mandibular structures. Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8 (3): 152-156.

  16. Nielsen IL. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95 (5): 422-431.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com