View clinical trials related to Maxillary Hypoplasia.
Filter by:Class III malocclusions may originate in a retrognathic maxilla, a prognathic mandible or both. Young patients with class III malocclusion and maxillary hypoplasia are conventionally treated with a protraction facemask in order to stimulate forward growth of the upper jaw. This treatment option is often inducing unwanted side effects including mesial migration of the teeth in the upper jaw and clockwise rotation of the mandible. Because skeletal effects are often difficult to achieve with this approach, more pronounced class III malocclusions cannot be addressed by face mask therapy. These children cannot be treated during childhood and end up in major orthognathic surgery at full-grown age. To be able to treat also the more pronounced class III malocclusion and to minimize dentoalveolar compensations new treatment methods were developed which uses skeletal anchorage.
patients were enrolled by the inclusion criteria and were undergo lefort 1 maxillary osteotomy. after the latency phase the distraction was done in anterior- posterior vector. patients were divided by randomized allocation in 2 groups. in group 1 the distractor was removed after consolation phase, and in group 2 fixation devices were placed immediately after removal of distractors. data regarding relapse were analyzed by lateral cephalogram X-ray taken in 3 different phases of the trial. change of occlusal plane and the "A point" of the cephalometric analysis were determined as reference point of the study.
A few studies state that 3-segment SARPE has the following advantages: a) higher level of expansion symmetry; b) higher level of stability of the expansion achieved; and c) faster bone healing. The investigators hypothesize that 2-segment SARPE is as effective as 3-segment SARPE concerning treatment and/or quality of life in daily practice.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the orthodontic retainer on transverse maxillary dental and skeletal stability after SARME.
Cleft lip and palate patients normally present with a sunken face due to collapse in the middle part of the face and inability of the upper and lower teeth to meet during chewing. This situation constitutes a serious aesthetic and mastication problem. A single surgical operation known as orthognathic surgery was traditionally performed to move the upper jaw forward to a more normal position and allow chewing function to be regained. However, due to scar tissue from the original surgical repair of the cleft palate, this procedure is known to be unstable causing bone to rapidly go back to its original position. A new concept of moving the upper jaw bone gradually by 1mm per day using a special device attached to the bone called distraction osteogenesis was established in 1996. Animal studies have shown that this technique can produce stable results with minimal relapse. The feasibility of correcting cleft deformities by gradual distraction has been confirmed by our own clinical studies. The aim of this study (which is the first of its kind) is to conduct a prospective randomized controlled study and compare the treatment outcomes of the current standard (orthognathic surgery) with distraction osteogenesis (gradual bone movement). The objectives focus on four aspects: morbidity, stability, speech function and psychological impact. The results from this study will clarify several clinical dilemmas in decision making when choosing whether to use orthognathic surgery or distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of cleft lip and palate patients. In addition, it will also inform our multidisciplinary research team to improve the total care of the cleft lip and palate patients. Gradual bone distraction of the midface in cleft palate patients is more stable, less detrimental to speech, and no more troublesome to the patient than conventional osteotomy and bone transposition (orthognathic surgery).