3D soft‐tissue evaluation of a Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expander and face mask in pre‐pubertal phase—A retrospective cohort study

Facial morphology differences in monozygotic twins: a retrospective stereophotogrammetric study

OBJECTIVE

To assess soft tissue differences between monozygotic twins (MZ) for the total face and between facial regions using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry and quantitative surface-based 3D deviation analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study sample consisted of 14 untreated MZ twins (6 males, 8 females, mean age: 14.75 years) from the archive of Marmara University, Department of Orthodontics. The images were taken by the 3dMDface system, and 3dMDvultus software was used for removal of undesired areas and approximation of the images. Then, stereolithography (.stl) format images were superimposed using the best-fit algorithm using 3-matic software. The face was divided into facial thirds, and upper lip and lower lip + chin regions were created. For the comparison, 3D deviation analyses were performed, and a color map and histogram were created. The data were presented as mean deviation, root mean square (RMS), median, and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Between the facial thirds, there was no significant difference in soft tissue differences for mean deviation. A statistically significant difference was found between the upper and lower face for the RMS value. For the comparison of upper lip and lower lip + chin region, the only significant difference was for the RMS. When the data were presented as median and interquartile range, there were no statistically significant differences between any facial regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower facial third and lower lip + chin regions had the greatest differences within MZ twin pairs. The genetic and environmental influences might not be the same for different parts of the face.

Soft tissue evaluation after maxillary protraction with RPE or with the ALT-RAMEC protocol : A controlled 3D study

PURPOSE

To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry.

METHODS

Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 ± 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 ± 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 ± 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3‑matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 ± 0.26 mm, 0.3 ± 0.31 mm, 0.1 ± 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 ± 1.26 mm, -0.68 ± 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 ± 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.

Difference in Using Protrusion Face Mask before or after Rapid Palatal Expansion in Skeletal Class III Children: A Preliminary Study

Treatment of third-class malocclusions often presents a challenge for orthodontists. Skeletal disharmony is often associated with dental malposition. There are several therapeutic choices, including the use in combination of transverse expansion of the maxilla with rapid palatal expander (RPE) and posterior-anterior traction with a Delaire face mask (FM). The purpose of the study is to verify whether there are significant differences in the treatment outcome in the case of use of a face mask followed by a palatal expander or with the sequence of these auxiliaries reversed. Subject and Methods: The two groups were both made up of 13 patients, subdivided into group A, i.e., those whose sequence involved the use of extraoral traction first and then the disjunctor, and those with an inverted sequence in group B. Some cephalometric parameters and dento-skeletal characteristics were evaluated pre-treatment (t0) and at the end of therapy (t1). Results: Considering the T1-T0 of group A (Delaire + rapid palatal expander), the evaluation of the results obtained in this work allows us to observe how within group A there is a significant improvement in the Witts and Nanda indices and facial convexity. Group B (treated with the palate disjunctor sequence followed by traction with Delaire's mask) showed a significant improvement in ANB, in AoBo, and AppBpp values and in convexity. The two groups were comparable, and no statistically significant difference was highlighted. Discussion: The early therapy of the third skeletal classes by means of a rapid palate expander and face mask is effective. There is no statistically significant difference in the two groups who performed the therapy in reverse mode. This suggests that the clinician should choose the treatment sequence based on the skeletal and occlusal conditions of their patients at the start of treatment. Conclusion: Early therapy of third skeletal classes with sagittal expansion using a rapid palate expander can be performed earlier or later than posterior-anterior traction with a Delaire mask.

Tooth-borne versus tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expanders according to a stereophotogrammetric evaluation of facial soft tissues: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on soft tissue with stereophotogrammetry.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty two patients (15 males and 17 females) who met inclusion criteria were divided into two groups. In the first group, tooth-borne RME appliance (hyrax) was applied to 16 patients (9 males and 7 females mean age 13.4 ± 1.3 years), and in the second group, tooth-bone-borne RME appliance (hybrid hyrax) was applied to 16 patients (6 males and 10 females, mean age 13.05 ± 1.24 years).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Changes in soft tissues before RME (T0) and post-retention (T1) period were evaluated by stereophotogrammetry. Linear and angular measurements were performed. Independent- and dependent-sample t tests were used to compare intra- and inter-group differences at P < .05 significance level.

RESULTS

The data revealed statistically significant changes in nasal width, mid-face width, upper lip vermillion length/lower lip vermillion length ratio and upper lip angle in hyrax group. (P < .05) Also nasal width, lower lip length, lower lip vermillion length, anterior face height, lower face height, convexity angle and mandibular angle showed statistically significant changes in hybrid hyrax group. (P < .05) In the inter-group evaluation, no significant differences were found except upper lip and mandible angle. (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Both hyrax and hybrid hyrax expanders had effects on soft tissue profile. Anterior face height and lower face height increased in both groups. Upper lip length increased by 0.36 mm in the hybrid group and 0.10 mm in the hyrax group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04828213).