The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Dentoskeletal Effects of the Modified Tandem Appliance vs the Facemask Appliance in the Treatment of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion: A Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial

Amro H Husson, Ahmad S Burhan, Fadwa B Salma, Fehmieh R Nawaya

Citation Information : Husson AH, Burhan AS, Salma FB, Nawaya FR. Dentoskeletal Effects of the Modified Tandem Appliance vs the Facemask Appliance in the Treatment of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion: A Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (7):522-529.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1883

Published Online: 01-07-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the modified tandem appliance (MTA) vs the facemask (FM) with rapid maxillary expansion.

Materials and methods

Thirty-two patients, aged 7 to 9 years were recruited. Eligibility criteria included skeletal class III malocclusion that resulted from the retrusion of the maxilla. Randomization was accomplished to divide the sample into two equal groups to be treated with either MTA or FM. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained before treatment and after 2 mm positive overjet was achieved. Intragroup comparisons were performed using paired-sample t-test, and intergroup comparisons were performed using two-sample t-test at the p ≤ 0.05 level.

Results

Thirty-two patients (16 in each group) were available for statistical analysis. The pretreatment variables of both groups were similar. Both treatment therapies showed similar significant increase in the SNA and ANB angles, accompanied by slight decrease in the SNB angle. The increase in the SN:GoMe angle, Bjork's sum, and the overjet were significantly greater in the FM group. The forward movement of upper dentition was similar in both groups. Although the lower incisors retrusion was significantly greater in the FM group than in the MTA group, the uprighting of the lower molars was significantly greater in the MTA group.

Conclusion

Both appliances showed similar effects apart from less clockwise rotation of the mandible, less retrusion of the lower incisors, and greater uprighting of the lower molars in the MTA group.

Clinical significance

Both the MTA and the FM groups are effective in treating class III malocclusion. The MTA group is more efficient in controlling the clockwise rotation and gaining some space in the lower arch.

How to cite this article

Husson AH, Burhan AS, Salma FB, Nawaya FR. Dentoskeletal Effects of the Modified Tandem Appliance vs the Facemask Appliance in the Treatment of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion: A Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):522-529.


PDF Share
  1. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008 May;78(3):561-573.
  2. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999 Jun;115(6):675-685.
  3. Treatment of skeletal problems in children. In: Proffit W, Fields H, Sarver D, editors. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2007. p. 495-511.
  4. Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014 Aug;17(3):133-143.
  5. Early treatment to correct Class III relations with or without face masks. Angle Orthod 2008 Jan;78(1):44-49.
  6. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Sep;128(3):299-309.
  7. Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up. J Orthod 2010 Sep;37(3):149-161.
  8. Dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance. Eur J Orthod 2010 Dec;32(6):655-661.
  9. A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012 Jan;82(1):96-101.
  10. A new appliance for orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion. J Clin Orthod 1999 Dec;33(12):705-711.
  11. Maxillary protraction effects of TTBA (tandem traction bow appliance) therapy in Korean Class III children. Korean J Orthod 2007 Jun;37(3):231-240.
  12. Modified tandem traction bow appliance compared with facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2014 Jul;84(4):642-648.
  13. Early orthopedic Class III treatment with a modified tandem appliance. J Clin Orthod 2003 Apr;37(4):218-223.
  14. Early treatment of skeletal Class III open bite with the tandem appliance. J Clin Orthod 2011 Jun;45(6):308-316.
  15. Research randomizer; 2014 [accessed 2014 Aug 23]. Available from: http://www.randomizer.org/.
  16. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. London: George Allen and Unwin; 1940. p. 98.
  17. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998 Mar;113(3):333-343.
  18. Soft and hard tissue profile changes after rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy. World J Orthod 2010 Winter;11(4):e10-e18.
  19. Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000 Oct;118(4):404-413.
  20. Orthodontic and orthopaedic changes associated with treatment in subjects with Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2006 Oct;28(5):496-502.
  21. The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2012 Sep;82(5):846-852.
  22. Managing the developing Class III malocclusion with palatal expansion and facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002 Oct;122(4):349-352.
  23. Sagittal airway dimensions following maxillary protraction: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2006 Apr;28(2):184-189.
  24. A comparison of chincap and maxillary protraction appliances in the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2000 Feb;22(1):43-51.
  25. Skeletal and dental effects of a mini maxillary protraction appliance. Angle Orthod 2006 May;76(3):360-368.
  26. Comparison of the soft and hard tissue effects of two different protraction mechanisms in class III patients: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2015 Nov;19(8):2115-2122.
  27. Comparison of orthodontic and orthopedic effects of a modified maxillary protractor between deciduous and early mixed dentitions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004 Jul;126(1):23-32.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.