Treatment effect of protraction head gear on skeletal Class III malocclusion.
- Author:
Chung Ju HWANG
1
;
Seung Hyun KYUNG
;
Joong Ki LIM
Author Information
1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Protraction Head Gear(P.H.G.);
Treatment beginning age;
Intraoral appliance;
Facial growth pattern
- MeSH:
Child;
Head*;
Humans;
Malocclusion*;
Maxilla
- From:Korean Journal of Orthodontics
1994;24(4):851-860
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Before 1970, mandibular overgrowth was known as main cause of skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing children ; however, recent study reports that many skeletal Class III malocclusion patients also show maxillary deficiency. Since 1972, when Delaire re-accommodated Protraction Head Gear (P.H.G.), many researchers have reported that skeletal Class III discrepancies could be corrected through use of P.H.G., which induces anterior movement of maxilla and change in mandibular growth pattern into infero-posterior direction ; nevertheless, it is very difficult to predict resultant changes of orofacial region. The purpose of this study was to find out what treatment effect P.H.G. has on different study samples. Author divided 51 skeletal Class III malocclusion patients with maxillary deficiency who were treated with P.H.G. into different study groups depending on sex, treatment beginning age, intraoral appliance, and facial growth pattern. By doing so, following results were obtained. 1. Treatment beginning age and Sex Four age groups (5.8 to 8 year-old, 8 to 10 year-old, 10 to 12 year-old, 12 to 14 year-old) were compared, and no significant difference was observed. (p<0.05) There was no significant difference between the sex groups, either. (p<0.05) 2. Intraoral appliance Treatment effects of study groups that used R.P.E.(mean age of 10.2) and Labio-Lingual appliance(mean age of 8.9) were compared. There was no significant difference depending on the type of intraoral appliance that was used. (p<0.05) 3. Facial growth pattern 1) Amounts of SNB and ANB corrections were smaller in clockwise growth pattern group than those in normal or counterclockwise growth pattern group. (p<0.05) 2) Amounts of increase in Wits appraisal and mandibular plane angle were greater in counterclockwise growth pattern group than those in normal or clockwise growth pattern group.(p<0.05) 3)Amounts of increase in articular angle were greater in counter lockwise growth pattern group than those in clockwise growth pattern group. (p<0.05)
