International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Effectiveness of Tongue Crib Combination Treating Severe Skeletal Angle Class III Malocclusion in Mixed Dentition

Wenting Zhao, Yan Chen, Hee-Moon Kyung, Jin-Shuai Xu

Citation Information : Zhao W, Chen Y, Kyung H, Xu J. Effectiveness of Tongue Crib Combination Treating Severe Skeletal Angle Class III Malocclusion in Mixed Dentition. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 13 (6):668-676.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1855

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the treatment effects of tongue crib combination for treating severe skeletal Angle class III malocclusion in mixed dentition by X-ray cephalometric analysis. Materials and methods: A sample of 22 patients with severe skeletal Angle class III malocclusion of deficiency maxilla and overgrown mandible in mixed dentition was prospectively collected and equally divided into two groups. The patients (males 6 and females 5; mean age 8.35 ± 1.6 years) in the study group were treated with tongue crib combination, and the untreated patients (females 5, males 6; mean age 8.12 ± 1.3 years) served as the control group. X-ray cephalometric films were measured before and after treatment for comparing the change of occlusion, maxilla, mandible, and soft tissue. A paired t-test was used by SPSS 21.0 statistical software. The intragroup data were compared by using the Wilcoxon test, and intergroup data were compared by using the Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Results: In the study group, all patients got a favorable facial profile. Anterior and posterior teeth crossbite and upper and lower first molars relationships were improved. In cephalometric measurement, significant changes were noted in the maxillary skeletal component. The significant forward growth of the maxilla exhibited in a statistical increase of SNA, ANS-PNS, Wits appraisal, p < 0.05. The mandible revealed slightly posterior rotation by no significant decrease in SNB and no change Co-Gn. After 1-year of retention, the changes of the teeth showed self-correction and facial profile improved further. Regarding vertical changes, maintenance of growth was shown a small non-significant increase of FMA, N-Me, and ANS-Me. There is a significant difference from those in the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Tongue crib combination is an effective device for the patients in the growing period with skeletal Angle class III malocclusion by improving the maxillary growth and limiting the mandibular growth.

PDF Share
  1. Liu ZP, Li CJ, Hu HK, et al. Efficacy of short-term chin-cup therapy for mandibular growth retardation in class III malocclusion: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2011;81(1):162–168. DOI: 10.2319/050510-244.1.
  2. Baccetti T, Reyes B, Mcnamara Jr J. Gender differences in class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2005;75(4):510–520.
  3. Kovalenko A, Slabkovskaya A, Drobysheva N, et al. The association between the psychological status and the severity of facial deformity in orthognathic patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82(3):396–402. DOI: 10.2319/060211-363.1.
  4. Jamilian A, Cannavale R, Piancino MG, et al. Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews. J Orthod 2016;43(2):102–120. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2016.1190077.
  5. Baccetti T, McGill JS, Franchi L, et al. Skeletal effects of early treatment of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(3):333–343. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70306-3.
  6. Martinez P, Bellot-Arcís C, Llamas JM, et al. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthognathic surgery for class III deformity: comparative cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46(4):490–495. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.12.001.
  7. Eslami S, Faber J, Fateh A, et al. Treatment decision in adult patients with class III malocclusion: surgery versus rthodontics. Prog Orthod 2018;19(1):28–33. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0218-0.
  8. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Ghassemi M, et al. The effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients. J Orthod 2012;39(2):95–101. DOI: 10.1179/1465312512Z.00000000011.
  9. Westwood PV, McNamara JA, Baccetti T, et al. Long-term effects of class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(3):306–320. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.44.
  10. Maino G, Turci Y, Arreghini A, et al. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybrid rapid palatal expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(2):262–268. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.022.
  11. Duggal R, Mathur V, et al. Class III – malocclusion: genetics or environment? A twins study. Indian J Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23(1):27–30. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.16023.
  12. De Clerck EEB, Swennen GRJ. Success rate of miniplate anchorage for bone anchored maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81(6):1010–1013. DOI: 10.2319/012311-47.1.
  13. Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Franchi L, et al. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination: A controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 2015;85(5):764–770. DOI: 10.2319/071614-497.1.
  14. Kircelli BH, Pektaş ZO, Uçkan S. Orthopedic protraction with skeletal anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and hypodontia. Angle Orthod 2006;76(1):156–163.
  15. Lin Y, Guo R, Hou L, et al. Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(7):2639–2652. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2363-8.
  16. Nascimento MHA, Araújo TM, Machado AW. Severe anterior open bite during mixed dentition treated with palatal spurs. J Clin Pedia Dent 2016;40(3):247–250. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.3.247.
  17. Sayın MO, Akın E, Karacay S, et al. Initial effects of the tongue crib on tongue movements during deglutition: A cine-magnetic resonance imaging study. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):400–405.
  18. Cleall JF. Deglutition: a study of form and function. Am J Orthod 1965;51(8):566–591. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(65)90028-X.
  19. Showkatbakhsh R, Toumarian L, Jamilian A, et al. The effects of face mask and tongue plate on maxillary deficiency in growing patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Orthod 2013;40(2):130–136. DOI: 10.1179/1465313312Y.0000000036.
  20. Woon SC, Thiruvenkatachari B. Early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151(1):28–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.017.
  21. De Clerck HJ, Proffit WR. Growth modification of the face: a current perspective with emphasis on class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2015;148(1):37–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.017.
  22. Proffit WR. Muscle pressures and tooth position: north American whites and Australian aborigines. Angle Orthod 1975;45(1):1–11.
  23. Slaviero T, Fernandes TMF, Oltramari-Navarro PVP, et al. Dimensional changes of dental arches produced by fixed and removable palatal cribs: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. Angle Orthod 2017;87(2):215–222. DOI: 10.2319/060116-438.1.
  24. Taslan S, Biren S, Ceylanoglu C. Tongue pressure changes before, during and after crib appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2010;80(3):533–539. DOI: 10.2319/070209-370.1.
  25. Koh SD, Chung DH. Comparison of skeletal anchored facemask and tooth-borne facemask according to vertical skeletal pattern and growth stage. Angle Orthod 2014;84(4):628–633. DOI: 10.2319/060313-421.1.
  26. Bozkaya E, Yüksel AS, Bozkaya S. Zygomatic miniplates for skeletal anchorage inorthopedic correction of class III malocclusion: a controlled clinical trial. Korean J Orthod 2017;47(2):118–129. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.2.118.
  27. Perillo L, Vitale M, Masucci C, et al. Comparisons of two protocols for the early treatment of class III dentoskeletal disharmony. Eur J Orthod 2016;38(1):51–56. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv010.
  28. Lee HS, Choi HM, Choi DS, et al. Bone thickness of the infrazygomatic crest area in skeletal class III growing patients: A computed tomographic study. Imaging Sci Dent 2013;43(4):261–266. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2013.43.4.261.
  29. Soo ND, Moore RN. A technique for measurement of intraoral lip pressure with lip bumper therapy. Am J Orthod 1991;99(5):409–417. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81574-4.
  30. Meyns J, Brasil DM, Mazzi-Chaves JF, et al. The clinical outcome of skeletal anchorage in interceptive treatment (in growing patients) for class III malocclusion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47(8):1003–1010. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.04.011.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.