Seminars in Orthodontics
Volume 13, Issue 3 , Pages 175-185, September 2007

Comparison of Protraction Facemask Response Using Banded and Bonded Expansion Appliances as Anchorage

  • Peter Ngan

      Affiliations

    • Professor and Chair, Department of Orthodontics, West Virginia University, School of Dentistry, Morgantown, WV.
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Peter Ngan, DMD, Department of Orthodontics. West Virginia University. School of Dentistry. 1076 Health Science Center North. PO Box 9480, Morgantown, WV 26506. Phone: 304-293-3222
  • ,
  • Elaine Cheung

      Affiliations

    • Private Practice, Perth, Western Australia.
  • ,
  • Stephen H.Y. Wei

      Affiliations

    • Professor and Dean, Emeritus, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong.

Protraction headgear has been used in combination with various fixed appliances as anchorage to correct Class III malocclusions with maxillary deficiency. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment response of maxillary protraction in combination with either the banded or the bonded rapid palatal expansion appliance. The sample consisted of pre- and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs of 20 patients treated with the banded expansion appliance, 20 patients treated with the bonded expansion appliance, and 20 control patients with no treatment who were matched in sex, age, and skeletal morphology. The average treatment time for the bonded group was 10 ± 2.1 months and the banded group was 9.5 ± 1.9 months. Traditional cephalometric measurements as well as the Pancherz analysis were used to describe the dental and skeletal changes in response to treatment. Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t test. There were no significant differences in the forward movement of the maxilla between the banded and bonded expansion groups. The forward movement of the maxilla was 1.0 mm and 1.7 mm greater than in the control group, respectively. The full coverage of the occlusal surface by acrylic did not increase the efficiency of forward maxillary movement. Loss of anchorage was found in both treatment groups. The skeletal and dental contributions to the correction of overjet and overbite were quite similar in the two treatment groups. Maxillary expansion and protraction was accompanied by vertical displacement of the maxilla, increase in lower face height, and vertical eruption of posterior molars, irrespective of the type of anchorage appliance.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 20.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1073-8746(07)00028-X

doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2007.05.003

Seminars in Orthodontics
Volume 13, Issue 3 , Pages 175-185, September 2007