Affiliations: [a] Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India | [b] Department of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal, India | [c] GSR Institute of Craniofacial Surgery, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India | [d] Shine N. Smile, Hyderabad, Andhra, Pradesh, India
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Shahistha Parveen, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Yenepoya Dental College Mangalore, Karnataka, India. E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: Maxillary protraction with expansion is the recommended treatment modality for growing patients with cleft lip and palate. The aim of this study was to compare the displacement of the craniofacial structures using Facemask and Maxgym for protraction therapy. A 3-D finite element model consisting of 185620 tetrahedral shaped elements and 49807 nodes was created using CT scan of a patient with UCLP. F1, F2, F3 represent protraction forces used for Facemask and M1, M2, M3 represent protraction forces used for Maxgym. E1 represents Slow Maxillary Expansion force and E2 represents Rapid Maxillary Expansion force. Protraction forces were applied parallel to the occlusal plane on the buccal side of the first premolars. Expansion forces were also applied on the lingual side of the first premolars and the first molars. The displacement of 13 representative nodes of craniofacial structures analyzed and compared. The selected nodes of dental and skeletal structures were displaced in sagittal direction under all loading conditions. Only protraction or expansion force results in displacement of craniofacial structures. Protraction with expansion forces resulted in larger displacement. Maxgym forces produce greater displacement than Facemask under all loading conditions. Maxgym may be used as an alternative to Facemask to treat midfacial deficiency.
Keywords: Cleft lip and palate, protraction, maxgym, facemask, expansion
