Facemask Therapy with Miniplate Implant Anchorage in a Patient with Maxillary Hypoplasia.
Zhou Yan-heng,Ding Peng,Lin Ye,Qiu Li-xin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00029330-200708010-00015
2007-01-01
Abstract:A reverse headgear is thought to be an effective treatment approach for skeletal class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla. Clinical studies have shown that the changes of occlusion are a combination of skeletal and dental changes: forward movement of the maxilla, proclination of the maxillary incisors, clockwise rotation of the mandible, and retroclination of the mandibular incisors.1,2 However, the undesirable dental effects, such as excessive mesial movement and extrusion of maxillary molars and labial tipping of maxillary incisors, have been reported. Most of previous studies have demonstrated that the best time for maxillary protraction is early mixed dentition.3,4 The skeletal effect decreases and the dental effect increases with age. So there is a need for an absolute stable anchorage for maxillary orthopedics to produce more skeletal change and less dental movement. This article shows the use of miniplate implant as anchorage for orthopedic facemask treatment in class III malocclusion. CASE REPORT An 11-year seven-month-old Chinese boy in late mixed dentition was seen in the Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, Peking University, Beijing, China. Extraoral examination revealed that the maxilla was retrognathic and the mandible was slightly prognathic. Intraoral examination revealed an anterior and posterior crossbite with a reverse overjet of 4 mm (Figs. 1 and 2). The molars were in class III relationship on both sides. There was no crowding in both maxillary and mandibular arches. Temporomandibular joint function was normal. Cephalometric analysis indicated a moderate skeletal class III malocclusion due to both maxillary retrusion and mandibular protrusion. The mandibular plane was tilted 30.72° to S-N plane.Fig. 1.: Initial extraoral frontal (A) and lateral (B) view pretreatment photographs.Fig. 2.: Initial intraoral pretreatment photographs. A: Occlusal view of maxillary arch; B: Reverse overjet of 4 mm; C: Occlusal view of mandibular arch; D: Class III molar relationship on right side; E: Anterior crossbite in centric occlusion; F: Class III molar relationship on left side.Treatment plan The patient and parents were concerned about dentofacial appearance. Treatment option was to use a facemask combined with fixed appliance to correct the anterior and posterior crossbite and improve facial esthetics. The patient and parents were informed that the treatment plan did not eliminate the possibility of orthognathic surgery later. The unfavorable growth of the jaws during or after treatment might necessitate a surgical treatment plan. The use of miniplate implant as anchorage for maxillary protraction was suggested and the patient and parents agreed. Treatment progress Miniplate implant placement Titanium miniplates were implanted by an experienced oral surgeon. After mouth rinsing for 3 minutes with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, under local anesthesia, a mucoperiosteal incision was made at the labial vestibule between the upper lateral incisors and canines on both sides. The mucoperiosteal flap was then elevated, and the surface of the cortical bone at the apical region of lateral incisors and canines was exposed. An appropriate length of I-shaped miniplate (plate thickness 1 mm, 3 holes) was selected and fixed in position with self-tapping screws (diameter 2 mm, length 7 mm), with the head exposed to the oral cavity from the incised wound. Care was taken to adjust the angle between the head and the body of the plates so that the head portion would not apply pressure on the attached gingiva. The incisions were finally closed and sutured with absorbable thread around the miniplate. This patient showed mild facial swelling for a week after the operation. It was necessary to take antibiotics and brush carefully (Fig. 3).Fig. 3.: Miniplates were placed on the lateral nasal wall of maxilla.Maxillary protraction appliance design A month was allowed for healing before application of force to the miniplates. After the month, the clinical evaluation for the patient included an assessment of plate mobility and infection. If nothing was abnormal, maxillary protraction was started. First, thread a segment of brass wire through the hole in the head of miniplate. Second, a ganoid composite resin ball (diameter 2–3 mm) was made at top of brass wire. The ball was used for protraction hook. A protraction force of 450 g per side at first, 500–600 g per side after one month with an anteroinferior force vector 30° to the occlusal plane, was applied from the composite ball in anchor miniplates to the facemask by using elastic modules. The patient was instructed to wear facemask at least 10 hours a day and prolong the wearing time as much as possible. Traction was continued for 6 months until enough forward movement of the maxilla had been achieved to improve the midface esthetics. After maxillary protraction, the miniplate implant was removed under local anesthesia, then fixed appliance was bonded. Treatment result The application of protraction force from a facemask to a miniplate implant placed in the anterior maxilla resulted in a significant improvement in facial esthetics (Fig. 4) and the maxillo-mandibular jaw relation (Figs. 5 and 6). SNA angel was changed from 79.89° to 82.53°, SNB angle from 84.16° to 81.67°, ANB angle from -4.27° to 0.86°, Wits from -10.18 mm to -2.66 mm, A-NP distance increased by 5.48 mm, mandibular plane angle increased by 2°, while the change of U1/SN was not significant.Fig. 4.: Post-treatment extraoral frontal (A) and lateral (B) view photographs.Fig. 5.: Post-treatment intraoral photographs. A: Occlusal view of maxillary arch; B: Normal overjet; C: Occusal view of mandibular arch; D: Class I molar relationship on right side; E: Normal overbite; F: Class I molar relationship on left side.Fig. 6.: Pretreatment (A) and post-treatment (B) lateral cephalometric radiograph.DISCUSSION Treatment timing for face mask therapy It is widely accepted that the midface deficient class III patients should be treated as early as possible to produce a more significant response from protraction therapy. Better skeletal effect can be obtained in the primary and early mixed dentitions.4,5 The major goal of protraction is the forward movement of the maxilla. The skeletal effect is diminished as the circummaxillary sutures mature with increasing age. It was demonstrated that treatment changes in the younger patients were larger than those in the older patients.1,6 At later ages, tooth movement and/or mandibular rotation are increasingly likely to be the major components of the response to treatment. This patient was in the late mixed dentition and the upper incisors were completely erupted. The distance between the roots of lateral incisors and canines was enough for the placement of miniplates. A significant skeletal response was achieved. Skeletal anchorage for maxillary protraction The conventional protraction force is applied via elastics to teeth or other devices supported by teeth and/or palate. This indirect application of force brings inevitably the undesirable dental effects. So we must search for a stable and extremely effective anchorage to obtain more significant skeletal effect. Ankylosed deciduous canines used as absolute anchorage for face mask therapy has been shown to be clinically viable,7 which provides direct transmission of force to the circummaxillary sutures. However, the inevitable resorption of anchor teeth as their permanent successors' erupting limits the time available for treatment. Since the osseointegrated implant is known to behave like an ankylosed tooth, it has been used in both animal models and in human case reports as an alternative method of maxillary protraction.8–10 Implants have been demonstrated to be biologically compatible and attachment of an orthopedic traction force directly to the maxilla can be obtained. In previous case reports,9,10 used as a stable anchorage for facemask therapy, onplant was placed in hard palate and osseointegrated implant was placed in inferior border of zygomatic buttress. The use of miniplate implant placed in maxillary anterior alveolar bone as orthopedic anchorage has not been reported. In untreated class III maxillary deficient patients, some researchers have found that A point came forward only 0.2 mm over a 6-month period.11 Burstone et al12 thought that even with patients' excellent cooperation, the amount of orthopedic movement of the maxilla forward is relatively small and, rarely, more than 1 to 2 mm. In a study by Baik,13 greater forward movement in maxilla (2.0 mm) was found when protraction was in conjunction with maxillary expansion compared with protraction without maxillary expansion (0.9 mm). The reported increase in ANB angle ranged from 0.9° to 4.39°, with an average value of 2.79°.1 However, in this case, a 5.5 mm advancement in A point and a 5.13° increase in ANB angle were achieved. This was due to a combination of maxillary protraction, normal growth and mandible rotation. This was much more than the mean value reported by other investigators using tooth-borne appliances as anchorage for facemask alone or in combination with expansion therapy. It showed an extreme effectiveness of miniplate implant anchorage for facemask therapy. The U1-SN angle was increased by only 0.1°, and this showed that the upper incisors tipped labially little. In generally, more upper incisors' proclination in facemask therapy are produced with the nonexpansion appliance. In this case, flaring of the upper incisors may be limited because the traction force was applied directly to the maxilla by attachment of miniplates placed in the maxillary alveolar bone, which differs from facemask treatment with tooth-borne appliance. The 2° increase in the SN-mandibular plane angle, 2.49° decrease in SNB angle, and an increase in the lower face height by 1.84 mm is a reflection of the mandibular downward and backward rotation which can contribute to the improvement of jaw relationship. This mandibular rotation is mentioned frequently in the literature1,2 and may be explained, in part, by the extrusion of the upper molars, as a consequence of maxillary expansion. However, the direction of the force delivered by the protraction mask on the chin is distal and almost in a straight line, which can also cause a clockwise rotation of the mandible in this case, similar to the other methods that have not used maxillary expansion before protraction. These changes are unfavorable in class III patients with a long vertical dimension and open bite tendency. Advantages and disadvantages of miniplates as skeletal anchorage Miniplate is made of pure titanium which is suitable for osseointegration, making it very stable and safe. In addition, it is strong enough to withstand orthopedic forces, and can be also bent with ease for fitting into the bone contour and soft tissue of the implantation site. Titanium miniplate is fixed with monocortical minisrews, so it does not delay the time for osseointegration, and protraction treatment can begin earlier. This is the most distinctive advantage of miniplate anchorage in comparision with onplant anchorage used in facemask therapy. However, most patients who underwent implantation surgery for miniplates showed mild to moderate facial swelling after the operation. This is almost inevitable. In addition, infections can be associated with miniplate implantation. The implantation site near the apical region of lateral incisors and canines also brings the problem and risk of tooth injury. In conclusion, orthopedic protraction with a facemask in conjunction with miniplate anchorage may offer a treatment alternative for skeletal class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla. The miniplates and screws were placed on the lateral nasal wall of maxilla, and they did not wait for osseointegration. Further studies on facemask therapy with miniplate anchorage are required to assess long-term clinical effects.