Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2016; 48(04): 255-262
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-119707
Fallbericht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Kombination von Klasse-III-Gummizügen, skelettaler Verankerung und Kortikotomie zur schnellen Korrektur einer Klasse-III-Dysgnathie

Class III Elastics, Skeletal Anchorage and Corticotomy Combined for Rapid Correction of a Class III Case
H. N. Yilmaz
1   DDS, PhD, Juniorprofessor, Fakultät für Zahnmedizin, Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Marmara-Universität, Istanbul, Türkei
,
H. Garip
2   DDS, PhD, Außerordentlicher Professor, Fakultät für Zahnmedizin, Abteilung für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Marmara-Universität, Istanbul, Türkei
,
N. Kucukkeles
3   DDS, PhD, Professor, Fakultät für Zahnmedizin, Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Marmara-Universität, Istanbul, Türkei
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 January 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Im vorliegenden Fallbericht wird die Therapie einer Klasse-III-Malokklusion bei einem 14-jährigen Patienten beschrieben. Da der Patient die Anwendung einer extraoralen Apparatur ablehnte und den Wachstumsabschluss zur Durchführung einer orthognathen Chirurgie nicht abwarten wollte, wurden Miniplatten im vorderen Bereich der Symphyse zur skelettalen Verankerung eingesetzt; anschließend wurde eine unvollständige LeFort-I-Osteotomie durchgeführt, um eine schnelle Oberkiefer-Protraktion durchführen zu können. Nach Abschluss der Protraktion des Oberkiefers war der A-Punkt in 4,5 Monaten um 6,34 mm vorverlagert worden und die Behandlung wurde mit einer Multibracketapparatur fortgesetzt. Nach einer Gesamt-Behandlungsdauer von 21 Monaten wies der Patient ein deutlich ästhetischeres Profil und Lächeln auf, was für eine hohe Zufriedenheit des Patienten und seiner Eltern sorgte.

Abstract

This case report describes the treatment of a 14-year-old male patient with Class III malocclusion. As the patient refused to use an extraoral appliance or wait until the end of growth for orthognatic surgery, miniplates were inserted in the anterior region of the symphysis for skeletal anchorage, and incomplete Le Fort I osteotomy was performed to rapidly protract the maxilla. At the end of maxillary protraction, A point moved 6.34 mm forward in 4.5 months and treatment was continued with multibracket appliances. Following 21-month total treatment time, the patient’s profile and smile esthetics improved remarkably which resulted in high satisfaction of the patient and his parents.

Schlüsselwörter

Kortikotomie - Oberkiefer-Protraktion - skelettale Verankerung

Key words

corticotomy - maxillary protraction - skeletal anchorage
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Angle E. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 1899; 41: 248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dietrich UC. Morphological variability of skeletal Class 3 relationships as revealed by cephalometric analysis. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc 1970; 131-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sanborn RT. Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 1955; 25: 208-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jacobson A, Evans WG, Preston CB et al. Mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1974; 66: 140-171
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Williams S, Andersen CE. The morphology of the potential Class III skeletal pattern in the growing child. Am J Orthod 1989; 89: 302-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Smalley WM, Shapiro PA, Hohl TH et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 285-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Singer SL, Henry PJ, Rosenberg I. Osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to facemask therapy: a case report. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 253-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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: 440-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Heymann GC, Cevidanes L, Cornelis M et al. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 274-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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: 577-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hong H, Ngan P, Han G et al. Use of onplants as stable anchorage for facemask treatment: a case report. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 453-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kenealy P, Frude N, Shaw W. An evaluation of the psychological and social effects of malocclusion: some implications for dental policy making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 583-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, De Clerck HJ et al. Systematic review of the experimental use of temporary skeletal anchorage devices in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131 4 Suppl S52-S58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M et al. Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 373-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Park HS, Jeong SH, Kwon OW. Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 18-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Molina F, Ortiz Monasterio F, de la Paz Aguilar M et al. Maxillary distraction: aesthetic and functional benefits in cleft lip-palate and prognathic patients during mixed dentition. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101: 951-963
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Küçükkeleş N, Nevzatoglu S, Koldas T. Rapid maxillary expansion compared to surgery for assistance in maxillary face mask protraction. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 42-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Şar C, Sahinoğlu Z, Özçirpici AA et al. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correctşion of maxillary retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 41-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar