Amitis Sarbaz1 and Shohreh Ghasemi2*
1Orthodontic resident at Georgia School of Orthodontics, GA,USA
2Adjunct Faculty of OMFS Department of Augusta University, GA, USA
*Correspondence to: Shohreh Ghasemi, Adjunct Faculty of OMFS Department of Augusta University, GA, USA
Received: June 07, 2023; Accepted: June 21, 2023; Published: June 30, 2023
Citation: Ghasemi S, Sarbaz A (2023) The Evaluation of Face Mask and Face Mask with RME Effect on Skeletal Class III Growing Children. Journal of Anatomical Variation and Clinical Case Report 1:104.
Copyright: ©2023 Sarbaz A. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
ABSTRACT
Background/objectives: To evaluate the skeletal and dental effects of the face mask (FM) treatment with and without rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in young children with Class III malocclusion. Material and methods: In this retrospective cohort study، pre-treatment and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs from 62 subjects diagnosed with skeletal Class III malocclusion were analyzed. The subjects were divided into two groups: the FM group (N 32; 5 male and 27 female subjects; mean [SD] age 8.3 [1.18] years) was treated with FM only، while the RME+FM group (N 30; 3 male and 27 female subjects; mean [SD] age 14.67 [1.53] years) was treated with both FM and RME. Seven cephalometric linear and fifteen angular variables were measured to assess skeletal changes in three dimensions (vertical، sagittal) and dental changes in both vertical and sagittal dimensions. Paired t-test and independent t-test were used to analyze within and between groups changes. Results:: Both FM and FM+RME groups demonstrated significant forward displacement of the maxilla; however، only the FM group has undergone statistically significant clockwise rotation of the Mandible. The sagittal relationship of upper and lower arches was improved significantly، in both groups. The proclamation of maxillary incisors was increased considerably in both groups; however, the mandibular incisor position decreased significantly only in the FM group. Limitations :Face mask and RME appliance have been used as a easiest to manage clinically but there is no substantial postural change is produced in maxillomandibular relationship in both groups. Conclusion: Forward movement of the maxilla can be obtained in young children after face mask treatment with or without RME. However، considering the overall positive effects of RME and FM in both sagittal and vertical skeletal dimensions، the difference between these two groups is not considered clinically significant enough to pursue clinicians to apply RME in cases without any need for pretreatment expansion. Implication : The reason this is such a concern in class III malocclusion with all limitations in Treatment plan , is no scientific evidence that would allow for the definition of adequate parameters for force magnitude, direction, and duration for maxillary protraction facemask treatment in class III patients.
Keywords: Face mask; Rapid maxillary expansion; Class III malocclusion
.
