Evaluation of skeletally anchored therapy using miniplates and micro-implants in skeletal Class III treatment

1.Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:292-9.10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70259-2Search in Google Scholar

2.Cordasco G, Matarese G, Rustico L, Fastuca S, Caprioglio A, Lindauer SJ et al. Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:133-43.10.1111/ocr.12040Search in Google Scholar

3.Seehra J, Fleming PS, Mandall N, Dibiase AT. A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:96-101.10.2319/032011-197.1Search in Google Scholar

4.Hata S, Itoh T, Nakagawa M, Kamogashira K, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto M et al. Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:305-11.10.1016/0889-5406(87)90171-5Search in Google Scholar

5.Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:583-92.10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70003-XSearch in Google Scholar

6.Feng X, Li J, Li Y, Zhao Z, Zhao S, Wang J. Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1107-14.10.2319/111411-705.1Search in Google Scholar

7.Klempner LS. Early orthopedic Class III treatment with a modified tandem appliance. J Clin Orthod 2003;37:218-23.Search in Google Scholar

8.Chun YS, Jeong SG, Row J, Yang SJ. A new appliance for orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:705-11.Search in Google Scholar

9.Enacar A, Giray B, Pehlivanoglu M, Iplikcioglu H. Facemask therapy with rigid anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and severe oligodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:571-7.10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00052-0Search in Google Scholar

10.Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:440-9.10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.01118331946Search in Google Scholar

11.De Clerck HJ, Cornelis MA, Cevidanes LH, Heymann GC, Tulloch CJ. Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2123-9.10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.007291039719761906Search in Google Scholar

12.Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2010;80:799-806.10.2319/111709-651.1293026120578848Search in Google Scholar

13.Ge YS, Liu J, Chen L, Han JL, Guo X. Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 2012,82:1083-91.10.2319/012912-76.1881314322639823Search in Google Scholar

14.De Clerck EE, Swennen GR. Success rate of miniplate anchorage for bone anchored maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81:1010-3.10.2319/012311-47.1890385521721948Search in Google Scholar

15.Ağlarci C, Esenlik E, Findik Y. Comparison of short-term effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:313-23.10.1093/ejo/cjv053491490826219549Search in Google Scholar

16.Koh SD, Chung DH. Comparison of skeletal anchored facemask and tooth-borne facemask according to vertical skeletal pattern and growth stage. Angle Orthod 2014;84:628-33.10.2319/060313-421.1865045724274955Search in Google Scholar

17.Cha BK, Choi DS, Ngan P, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Kim SM, Jang IS. Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:99-112.10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.02521195283Search in Google Scholar

18.Ahn HW, Kim KW, Yang IH, Choi JY, Baek SH. Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82:935-41.10.2319/010112-1.1882313022380632Search in Google Scholar

19.Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod 2011;81:639-46.10.2319/081010-473.1891973821299407Search in Google Scholar

20.De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:577-81.10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037303391421055597Search in Google Scholar

21.21-Sar C, Arman-Özçirpici A, Uçkan S, Yazici AC. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:636-49.10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.03921536207Search in Google Scholar

22.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;148:37-46.10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.01726124026Search in Google Scholar

23.Park JH, Chae JM, Bay RC, Kim MJ, Lee KY, Chang NY. Evaluation of factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants using panoramic radiographs. Korean J Orthod 2018;48:30-8.10.4041/kjod.2018.48.1.30Search in Google Scholar

24.Wiechmann D, Meyer U, Büchter A. Success rate of mini-and micro-implants used for orthodontic anchorage: a prospective clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2007;18:263-7.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01325.xSearch in Google Scholar

25.Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, Dyer F, Littlewood S, Mattick R et al. Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. J Orthod 2016;43:164-75.10.1080/14653125.2016.1201302Search in Google Scholar

26.Elnagar MH, Elshourbagy E, Ghobashy S, Khedr M, Evans CA. Comparative evaluation of 2 skeletally anchored maxillary protraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:751-62.10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.025Search in Google Scholar

27.Cordasco G, Matarese G, Rustico L, Fastuca S, Caprioglio A, Lindauer SJ et al. Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:133-43.10.1111/ocr.12040Search in Google Scholar

28.Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Prog Orthod 2015;16:26.10.1186/s40510-015-0096-7Search in Google Scholar

29.Hino CT, Cevidanes L, Nguyen T, De Clerck H, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2013;144:705-14.10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.011Search in Google Scholar

30.Osborn WS, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Mandibular arch perimeter changes with lip bumper treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:527-32.10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81629-4Search in Google Scholar