Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Cleft Lip and Palate | Original Article

Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol

Authors: Ege Dogan, PhD, Professor Ozlem Seckin, DDS, PhD

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hard and soft tissue effects and differences of the Alt-RAMEC protocol to the facemask and conventional facemask protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Methods

This prospective study was carried out with 30 patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate with skeletal and dental class III malocclusions who were referred to a university department of orthodontics. The patients were evaluated with the cervical vertebral maturation method and divided into two groups, each consisting of 15 patients. The patients in group I (mean age 10.00 ± 0.73 years) were treated according to conventional facemask protocol, and the patients in group II (mean age 10.07 ± 2.43 years) were treated according to the Alt-RAMEC protocol before facemask application. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated by using the Dolphin Imaging Software version 11.7. The skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue differences and treatment times were evaluated.

Results

Group II demonstrated a 5.73° increase in SNA, which was statistically significant, while this increase was 3.13° in group I (p < 0.001). Results for Co‑A and A‑PTV showed a significant increase for group II only (group I: 1.02 mm, 1.06 mm, group II: 3.02 mm, 2.21 mm; p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). In addition, group II presented significant increase for the values of ANB, N‑A-Pg, SN/MP, Wits, U1-SN, U1-L1, U1-PTV, U1-FHP, U6-PTV, U6-FHP, overjet, Ss-PTV, UL-PTV and UL‑S line (p < 0.001). The treatment mean times were 7.3 months in group I and 4.7 months in group II (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Applying the facemask after having followed the Alt-RAMEC protocol induced more skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue changes in comparison to the conventional facemask protocol in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Semb G (1991) A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28(1):1–21 (discussion 46-8)PubMedCrossRef

Garrahy A, Millett DT, Ayoub AF (2005) Early assessment of dental arch development in repaired unilateral cleft lip and unilateral cleft lip and palate versus controls. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42(4):385–391PubMedCrossRef

Singla S, Utreja A, Singh SP, Suri S (2018) Maxillary protraction by reverse headgear treatment in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: A cephalometric evaluation. J Cleft Lip Palate Craniofac Anomal 5:32–39CrossRef

Major MP, Wong JK, Saltaji H, Major PW, Flores-Mir C (2012) Skeletal anchored maxillary protraction for midface deficiency in children and early adolescents with class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J World Fed Orthod 1:47–54CrossRef

Liou EJ (2005) An innovative technique for maxillary protraction in Class III growing patients: the effective maxillary orthopedic protraction. J Clin Orthod 39(2):68–75PubMed

Liou EJ, Tsai WC (2005) A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: Repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 42(2):121–127PubMedCrossRef

Liou EJ (2005) Effective maxillary orthopedic protraction for growing Class III patients: a clinical application simulates distraction osteogenesis. Prog Orthod 6(2):154–171PubMed

Liou EJ, Chen PK (2003) New orthodontic and orthopaedic managements on the premaxillary deformities in patients with bilateral cleft before alveolar bone grafting. Ann Coll Surg 7:73–82CrossRef

Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S (2015) Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 148(4):641–651CrossRef

10.

Da Silva Filho OG, Garib D, Ribeiro GU (2009) Interview-Eric Liou. R Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial 14(5):27–37CrossRef

11.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA (2005) The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 11(3):119–129CrossRef

12.

Rakosi T (1982) Cephalometric radiography. Wolfe Medical Publications Ltd, London, pp 34–83

13.

Vieira GL, Menezes LM, Lima EMS, Rizzatto S (2009) Dentoskeletal effects of maxillary protraction in cleft patients with repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J 46(4):391–398CrossRef

14.

Do-de Latour TB, Ngan P, Martin CA, Gunel E (2009) Effect of alternate expansion and contraction on protraction of the maxilla: a pilot study. Hong Kong Dent J 6(2):72–82

15.

Masucci C, Franchi L, Giuntini V, Defraia E (2014) Short-term effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of Class III malocclusion: a controlled study. Orthod Craniofac Res 17(4):259–269PubMedCrossRef

16.

Canturk BH, Celikoglu M (2015) Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure. Angle Orthod 85(2):284–291PubMedCrossRef

17.

Al-Mozany SA, Dalci O, Almuzian M, Gonzalez C, Tarraf NE, Darendeliler MA (2017) A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients. Prog Orthod 18:40PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Pithon MM, Santos NL, Baiao FC, Pinheiro MC, Matos MN, Souza IA, Paula RP (2016) Is alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction an effective protocol in the treatment of Class III malocclusion? A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 21(6):34–42PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Lin Y, Guo R, Hou L, Fu Z, Li W (2018) Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 22(7):2639–2652PubMedCrossRef

20.

Tsai WC, Huang CS, Lin CT, Liou EJ (2008) Dentofacial changes of combined double-hinged rapid maxillary expansion and protraction facemask therapy. J Taiwan Assoc Orthod 20(2):5–18

21.

Wang YC, Chang PM, Liou EJ (2009) Opening of circumaxillary sutures by alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Angle Orthod 79(2):230–234PubMedCrossRef

22.

İşçi D, Türk T, Elekdağ-Türk S (2010) Activation-deactivation rapid palatal expansion and reverse headgear in Class III cases. Eur J Orthod 32(6):706–715PubMedCrossRef

23.

Meazzini MC, Zappia LB, Tortora C, Autelitano L, Tintinelli R (2018) Short- and long-term effects of late maxillary advancement with the Liou-Alt-RAMEC protocol in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J 20(10):1–9

24.

McNamara JA Jr. (1987) An orthopedic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusion in young patients. J Clin Orthod 21:598–608PubMed

25.

De Clerck HJ, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T (2010) Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study on consecutively treated class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138(5):577–581CrossRef

26.

Franchi L, Baccetti T, Masucci C, Defraia E (2011) Early Alt-RAMEC and facial mask protocol in class III malocclusion. J Clin Orthod 45(11):601–609PubMed

27.

Chatuverdi S, Deshwal L, Phadnis P, Kamath P, Agarwal A (2013) Non-surgical treatment of a class III patient with Alt-RAMEC protocol and facemask therapy. J Indian Orthod Soc 47(3):159–162CrossRef

28.

Papadopoulou AK, Dalcı O, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA (2017) Effects of hybrid-Hyrax, Alt-RAMEC and miniscrew reinforced heavy class III elastics in growing maxillary retrusive patients. A four-year follow-up pilot study. J Aust Orthod 33(2):199–211

29.

Wilmes B, Ngan P, Liou EJ, Franchi L, Drescher D (2014) Early class III facemask treatment with the hybrid hyrax and Alt-RAMEC protocol. J Clin Orthod 48(2):84–93PubMed

Title: Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate
Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol
Authors: Ege Dogan, PhD
Professor Ozlem Seckin, DDS, PhD
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Keywords: Cleft Lip and Palate
Cleft Lip and Palate
Cleft Lip and Palate
Cleft Lip and Palate
Cleft Lip and Palate
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00220-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate

Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Longitudinal changes in the dental arches and soft tissue profile of untreated subjects with normal occlusion

Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction

Condylar alterations and facial growth in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Upper canine response to rapid maxillary expander anchored to deciduous vs. permanent molars

Relationship between pterygomaxillary fissure morphology and maxillary/mandibular position