Avaliação da protração maxilar em pacientes portadores de fissura labiopalatina por meio de dois protocolos de expansão rápida maxilar

• Autor(a) principal: Meneguzzi, Ricardo Damo
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional PUCRS
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10923/440
• topic: ODONTOLOGIA; ORTODONTIA; FENDA LABIAL; TÉCNICA DE EXPANSÃO PALATINA

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare, after 12 months, the maxillary protraction effects with facemask in cleft lip and palate patients submitted to two rapid maxillary expansion (RME) protocols using a modified Haas expander. The sample was consisted of 20 individuals with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate who had sagittal and transverse constricted maxilla, being 10 boys and 10 girls, with a mean age of 10 years and 4 months. From these, 10 patients were submitted to one week of RME, with a one complete turn a day, followed by 11 months and 1 week of maxillary protraction (Group 1) and the others 10 individuals, submitted to seven weeks of alternate RME and constrictions followed by 10 months and 1 weeks of maxillary protraction, completing 12 month of treatment to both groups. The evaluation was accomplished through lateral cephalometric radiographies, in two different times: T1 – the beginning of the treatment and T4 – after 12 month of treatment. The results showed similar response in both groups, with maxillary displacement forward and downward, with tendency of clockwise rotation of palatal plan, mandibular clockwise rotation, an increase of the lower facial height and an improvement of maxillomandibular relationship. It was also observed extrusion and a displacement of the maxillary molars and incisors, retroinclination of the lower incisors, an improvement of the soft tissue profile and sagittal lip relationship. The only statistically significant difference was a further decreased of the convexity angle in Group 1 (p=0. 04). However, this difference between the groups was not clinically observed. As no statistically difference was observed between groups, isn’t justified the adoption of a new protocol of RME with an alternate expansions and constrictions as this presented no advantages over the conventional protocol.