Use of shape correspondence analysis to quantify skeletal changes associated with bone-anchored Class III correction.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the three-dimensional (3D) skeletal changes in the mandibles of Class III patients treated with bone-anchored maxillary protraction using shape correspondence analysis. MATERIAL AND METHOD Twenty-five consecutive patients with skeletal Class III who were between the ages of 9 and 13 years (mean age, 11.10 ± 1.1 years) were treated using Class III intermaxillary elastics and bilateral miniplates (two in the infrazygomatic crests of the maxilla and two in the anterior mandible). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed for each patient before initial loading (T1) and at 1 year out (T2). From the CBCT scans, 3D models were generated, registered on the anterior cranial base, and analyzed using 3D linear distances and vectors between corresponding point-based surfaces. RESULTS Bone-anchored traction produced anteroposterior and vertical skeletal changes in the mandible. The novel application of Shape correspondence analysis showed vectors of mean (± standard deviation) distal displacement of the posterior ramus of 3.6 ± 1.4 mm, while the chin displaced backward by 0.5 ± 3.92 mm. The lower border of the mandible at the menton region was displaced downward by 2.6 ± 1.2 mm, and the lower border at the gonial region moved downward by 3.6 ± 1.4 mm. There was a downward and backward displacement around the gonial region with a mean closure of the gonial angle by 2.1°. The condyles were displaced distally by a mean of 2.6 ± 1.5 mm, and there were three distinct patterns for displacement: 44% backward, 40% backward and downward, and 16% backward and upward. CONCLUSION This treatment approach induces favorable control of the mandibular growth pattern and can be used to treat patients with components of mandibular prognathism.

[1]  M. Styner,et al.  One-year assessment of surgical outcomes in Class III patients using cone beam computed tomography. , 2013, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[2]  L. Cevidanes,et al.  Three-dimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored Class III intermaxillary traction. , 2012, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  L. Cevidanes,et al.  Three-dimensional assessment of maxillary changes associated with bone anchored maxillary protraction. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[4]  Lucia Cevidanes,et al.  Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  J. McNamara,et al.  Treatment effects of the light-force chincup. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  J. McNamara,et al.  Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. , 2010, The Angle orthodontist.

[7]  Martin Styner,et al.  Outcome quantification using SPHARM-PDM toolbox in orthognathic surgery , 2010, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[8]  L. Cevidanes,et al.  Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. , 2009, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[9]  Marie A Cornelis,et al.  Superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models of growing patients. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  G. Kurt,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the condylar growth pattern and disk position after chin cup therapy: a preliminary study. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  James A. McNamara,et al.  The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) Method for the Assessment of Optimal Treatment Timing in Dentofacial Orthopedics , 2005 .

[12]  J. McNamara,et al.  Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  P. Sinclair,et al.  Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  T. Deguchi,et al.  Morphologic adaptation of temporomandibular joint after chincup therapy. , 1996, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[15]  H. Baik Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  A. Richardson,et al.  Early treatment of Class III incisor relationship using the chincap appliance. , 1993, European journal of orthodontics.

[17]  S J Chaconas,et al.  Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. , 1987, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  R. Behrents,et al.  Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[19]  T. Asano The effects of mandibular retractive force on the growing rat mandible. , 1986, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[20]  T. M. Graber,et al.  Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible: A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years , 1983 .

[21]  J. Joho The effects of extraoral low-pull traction to the mandibular dentition of Macaca mulatta. , 1973, American journal of orthodontics.

[22]  A. Björk The use of metallic implants in the study of facial growth in children: method and application. , 1968, American journal of physical anthropology.

[23]  E. Janzen,et al.  The cephalometric, anatomic, and histologic changes in Macaca mulatta after application of a continuous-acting retraction force on the mandible. , 1965, American journal of orthodontics.