Treatment of Maxillary Deficiency with Reverse Chin Cup: A Case Report



Abstract Views
0

Downloads
0

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted May 25, 2023
Published Jul 3, 2023
10.24018/ejdent.2023.4.4.278

Abstract viewed = 0 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Introduction: This case report aims to illustrate the dentoalveolar changes of a 13-year-old class III patient with maxillary deficiency treated with a Reverse Chin Cup appliance.one of the popular appliances for treating class III patients with deficient maxilla is facemask. In class III growing patients, treatment options include extraoral and intraoral devices. chin and forehead are used for extraoral anchorage supports.

Case Presentation: The patient is a 13-year-old girl with a mild maxillary deficiency. She had an Angle Class III molar relationship. She refused to use a face mask due to its highly bulky size. The Reverse Chin Cup is attached to a removable appliance in the upper jaw, with Adams clasps on the first molars, the first premolars, and C-clasps on the upper central and lateral incisors for additional anchorage.

Results: After the sixth month of treatment with a chin cup, SNA increased by 2°, and a positive overjet was achieved.

Conclusion: This case demonstrates that the reverse chin cup appliance is a suitable alternative to facemasks in class III and maxillary deficient cases.

Keywords: Cephalometric analysis Maxillary Deficiency orthodontics Reverse chin cup Skeletal class III

References

  1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Msd DM, Larson B, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics, 6e: South Asia Edition-E-Book: Elsevier India; 2019.
     Google Scholar
  2. Foster T, Walpole Day A. A survey of malocclusion and the need for orthodontic treatment in a Shropshire school population. British Journal of Orthodontics. 1974;1(3):73-8.
     Google Scholar
  3. Baik H-S, Han H-K, Kim D-J, Proffit WR. Cephalometric characteristics of Korean Class III surgical patients and their relationship to plans for surgical treatment. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. 2000;15(2):119-28.
     Google Scholar
  4. Emrich RE, Brodie AG, Blayney J. Prevalence of Class I, class II, and class III malocclusions (angle) in an urban population an epidemiological study. Journal of dental research. 1965;44(5):947-53.
     Google Scholar
  5. Staudt CB, Kiliaridis S. Different skeletal types underlying Class III malocclusion in a random population. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009;136(5):715-21.
     Google Scholar
  6. Jaradat M. An overview of Class III malocclusion (prevalence, etiology and management). Development. 2018;7:8.
     Google Scholar
  7. Chan GK-h. Class III malocclusion in Chinese (Cantonese): etiology and treatment. American journal of orthodontics. 1974;65(2):152-7.
     Google Scholar
  8. Khan MB, Karra A. Early treatment of class III malocclusion: a boon or a burden? International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2014;7(2):130.
     Google Scholar
  9. Meyns J, Brasil D, Mazzi-Chaves J, Politis C, Jacobs R. The clinical outcome of skeletal anchorage in interceptive treatment (in growing patients) for class III malocclusion. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2018;47(8):1003-10.
     Google Scholar
  10. Ramadan AA-F. Response of maxillary retrusion cases to face mask treatment. World Journal of Orthodontics. 2008;9(2).
     Google Scholar
  11. Ülgen M, Firatli S. The effects of the Fränkel's function regulator on the Class III malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1994;105(6):561-7.
     Google Scholar
  12. Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara Jr JA, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. The Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(5):799-806.
     Google Scholar
  13. Delaire J. Maxillary development revisited: relevance to the orthopaedic treatment of Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(3):289-311.
     Google Scholar
  14. Ulgen M, Firatli S. The effects of the Frankel's function regulator on the Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105(6):561-7.
     Google Scholar
  15. Alcan T, Keles A, Erverdi N. The effects of a modified protraction headgear on maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(1):27-38.
     Google Scholar
  16. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Taban T, Golrokh M. The effects of face mask and tongue appliance on maxillary deficiency in growing patients: a randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2012;13(3):266-72.
     Google Scholar
  17. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A. A novel method of maxillary deficiency treatment by tongue plate--a case report. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2011;22(1):31-4.
     Google Scholar
  18. Jamilian A, Showkatbakhsh R. Treatment of maxillary deficiency by miniscrew implants--a case report. J Orthod. 2010;37(1):56-61.
     Google Scholar
  19. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Behnaz M. Treatment of maxillary deficiency by miniplates: a case report. ISRN Surg. 2011;2011:854924.
     Google Scholar
  20. 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(5):577-81.
     Google Scholar
  21. Yavuz I, Halıcıoğlu K, Ceylan I. Face mask therapy effects in two skeletal maturation groups of female subjects with skeletal Class III malocclusions. The Angle Orthodontist. 2009;79(5):842-8.
     Google Scholar
  22. Toffol LD, Pavoni C, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78(3):561-73.
     Google Scholar