R.M.S. bite corrector: A novel appliance for the correction of mandibular prognathism in growing children-Part one: Skeletal and dental changes
Keywords:Class III malocclusion, palatal expansion, reverse twin block, interceptive orthodontics
Introduction and Aim: Mandibular prognathism is one of the most challenging conditions in clinical dental practice. No appliance has yet been introduced to manage this strenuous condition. Hence, a modified appliance, R.M.S. (removable acrylic splint) bite corrector was fabricated combining the principles of three conventional appliances. The aim was to evaluate the skeletal and dental changes following R.M.S bite corrector in growing children with mandibular prognathism, using lateral cephalograms.
Materials and Methods: Twenty children between the age group 9 - 13 years, presenting with class III malocclusion with prognathic mandible were selected. R.M.S bite corrector was fabricated, which consist of reverse twin block with RME (Rapid Maxillary Expansion) incorporated in the upper block. Hooks integrated in the molar region of the upper block, and between the lateral incisors and canines in the lower block. A gradual increasing force was delivered by engaging intraoral intermaxillary elastics. After 10 months, skeletal, dental, and dentoalveolar parameters and linear measurements of jaw bases were compared using pre- and post-operative lateral cephalograms.
Results: After 10 months, skeletal changes included a significant retrusion of the mandible and maxillary protraction. Dental changes comprised of an increase in proclination of maxillary and mandibular incisors, which was not significant. A significant increase in the length of the maxillary base, non-significant change in the linear measurements of the mandibular base and ramal length leading to relocation of the mandible in a relatively new position with better esthetics.
Conclusion: Desirable skeletal and dental changes were observed following R.M.S. bite correction.
Park, C.G., Yoo, J.W., Park, I.C. Surgical treatment of mandibular prognathism in collaboration with orthodontic treatment in Korea. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1994 Fall;18(4):407-412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00451349
Azamian, Z., Shirban, F. Treatment options for class III malocclusion in growing patients with emphasis on maxillary protraction. Scientifica, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8105163
Kim, J. H., Viana, M. A., Graber, T. M., Omerza, F. F., BeGole, E. A. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1999; 115(6): 675-685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70294-5
Sargod, S. S., Shetty, N., Shabbir, A. Early class III management in deciduous dentition using reverse twin block. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2013; 31(1): 56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.112418
Kinder, G., DiBiase, A., DiBiase, D. Class III twin blocks: a case series. Journal of orthodontics. 2003; 30(3): 197-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.197
Sar, C., Arman-Ozcirpici, A., Uckan, S., Yazici, A. C. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011; 139(5): 636-649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.039
Charan, J., Biswas, T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2013; 35(2):121-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7176.116232
Ge, Y. S., Liu, J., Chen, L., Han, J. L., Guo, X. Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction: Miniscrew implants versus rapid maxillary expanders. The Angle Orthodontist. 2012; 82(6):1083-1091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/012912-76.1
Isaacson, R. J., Ingram, A. H. Forces produced by rapid maxillary expansion: II. Forces present during treatment. The Angle Orthodontist. 1964; 34(4): 261-270.
Minase, R. A., Bhad, W. A., Doshi, U. H. Effectiveness of reverse twin block with lip pads-RME and face mask with RME in the early treatment of class III malocclusion. Progress in Orthodontics. 2019; 20(1): 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0266-0
Cha, B. K., Ngan, P. W. Skeletal anchorage for orthopedic correction of growing class III patients. In Seminars in Orthodontics. 2011; 17(2): 124-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.12.005
Ngan, P., Hagg, U., Yiu, C., Merwin, D., Wei, S. H. Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protraction. European Journal of Orthodontics. 1996; 18(2): 151-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.2.151
Aglarci, C., Esenlik, E., Findik, Y. Comparison of short-term effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016; 38(3): 313-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv053
Shetty, R., Hegde, A. M., Unais, M. Correction of Class III Malocclusion Using Modified Maxillary Protraction Appliance. Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research. 2019; 7(3): 46-54.
Lee, N. K., Yang, I. H., Baek, S. H. The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. The Angle Orthodontist. 2012; 82(5): 846-852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/090811-584.1
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Biomedicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.