We appreciate the journal editors and readers for their interest to our study and hope the following answers would be helpful to our readers.
A1. In the studies evaluating the miniplate anchored facemask therapy, when the zygomatic buttresses of the maxilla was preferred as miniplate insertion area, it is recommended that the miniplates should be inserted in forward and downward position to allow the alignment of screws and hook of miniplates with the same direction of the orthopedic force, which was 30° downward from the occlusal plane via elastics. Thus, when the elastics were attached to the hooks, the direction of orthopedic force vector would pass through the center of resistance where the miniplates were inserted.1,3
In the present study, a similar protocol was performed during the miniplate insertion and orthopedic force application (Figures 2 and 3 in the article). However, based on our clinical experiences it was not always possible to insert miniplates as mentioned due to the anatomical limitations, bone density, germs of teeth, etc. Therefore, the direction of force vector could pass below the center of resistance in some cases which could explain the insignificant 0.31° of anterior rotation in the present study. This is why we concluded in our study that a miniplate-anchored facemask decreased, not eliminated, the rotation of the palatal plane.
A2. The increase in the daily usage of maxillary protraction device with a tooth-borne anchorage unit causes more dental effects rather than skeletal correction. Therefore, it is recommended to use the protraction device 14 to 16 hours per day to achieve more skeletal and less dental effect with tooth-borne anchorage units.4
However, the use of skeletal anchorage units eliminates the need for dental anchorage and transfers the orthopedic force directly to maxilla. These appliances allow clinicians to apply a continuous force to reduce the total treatment time without any side effect which was our aim in using the facemask all day except during meals. The mean treatment time was 1.08 ± 0.35 years in the present study.
In the literature, the miniplate anchored maxillary protraction therapies reported different daily use of device. A full time force application was reported by Kircelli and Pektas5 and Kaya et al.6 with facemasks, and Sar et al.,7 De Clerck et al.,8 Cevidanes et al.,9 and Coscia et al.10 with intermaxillary elastics. The average treatment time was reported between 7, 6, and 18 months in mentioned studies. However, Lee et al.3 reported 12 to 14 hours, Cha and Ngan1 reported 14 to 16 hours, and Sar et al.11 reported 16 hours daily facemask use with miniplate anchorage and the authors reported the total protraction time between 7, 4, and 12 months. These results showed that clinicians prefer full time force application in the intraoral maxillary protraction systems and the patient tolerance to the appliance is a determinant factor for the protraction force duration. Our treatment time was between the results of previous studies; therefore, it is not possible to conclude that wearing face mask all day except meals reduces total treatment time. For the evaluation of different force durations during protraction therapy a comparative study is needed.
A3. In the present study all miniplates were fixed by two screws to maxilla. During the protraction therapy failure in the stability of miniplates due to the screw loosening were observed once in three miniplates and twice in one miniplate out of 36 miniplates. However, more stable results were reported with three screws.1,6
One of the main goals of the present study was insert the miniplates on center of resistance which was determined at the zygomatic buttress of maxilla.12,13 While inserting a miniplate to this area with three screws it was possible to pass the zygomaticomaxillary suture for the third screw or the miniplate should be dislocated more below from the center of resistance. In the first situation one of the three screws will be inserted to zygomatic bone which results with resistance and failure in protraction of maxilla; however, in the second one it is possible to insert screws much more close to the maxillary sinus or germ of permanent teeth. Moreover, more anterior rotation in palatal plane will be observed due to the inserting miniplates below the center of resistance. Therefore, two screws were used considering the anatomical limitations and satisfying stable results were obtained during protraction therapy.
References
-
1.Cha BK, Ngan PW. Skeletal anchorage for orthopedic correction of growing class III patients. Semin Orthod. 2011;17:124–137. [Google Scholar]
-
2.Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, Nyssen-Behets C, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JF. Patients' and orthodontists' perceptions of miniplates used for temporary skeletal anchorage: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
3.Lee NK, Yang IH, Baek SH. The short-term treatment effects of face mask therapy in Class III patients based on the anchorage device: miniplates vs rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:846–852. doi: 10.2319/090811-584.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
4.Yepes E, Quintero P, Rueda ZV, Pedroza A. Optimal force for maxillary protraction facemask therapy in the early treatment of class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:586–594. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
5.Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:440–449. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
6.Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:639–646. doi: 10.2319/081010-473.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
7.Sar C, Sahinoğlu Z, Özçirpici AA, Uçkan S. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
8.De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:577–581. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
9.Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA, Jr, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:799–806. doi: 10.2319/111709-651.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
10.Coscia G, Addabbo F, Peluso V, D'Ambrosio E. Use of intermaxillary forces in early treatment of maxillary deficient class III patients: results of a case series. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40:e350–e354. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
11.Sar C, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Uçkan S, Yazıcı AC. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:636–649. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
12.Billiet T, de Pauw G, Dermaut L. Location of the centre of resistance of the upper dentition and the nasomaxillary complex. An experimental study. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:263–273. doi: 10.1093/ejo/23.3.263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
-
13.Staggers JA, Germane N, Legan HL. Clinical considerations in the use of protraction headgear. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:87–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
