Comparative evaluation of Efficacy of Tandem Traction Bow Appliance Compared with Reverse Pull headgear in Skeletal Class III Children - A Cephalometric Prospective Study
Dr.Ritu Garg; Dr. Shruti Patil; Dr. Ameet .V. Revankar; Dr. Vijay .P. JayadeBackground and objectives: There have been various modalities to treat growing Class III patients with maxillary deficiency, one of the them being Tandem Traction Bow appliance(TTBA). Patient compliance is better with this appliance since it is more comfortable and esthetic. Good clinical results have been seen, but these have not been reported.Hence, the purpose of this study was to make a detailed evaluation of hard and soft tissue changes with TTBA in the non-cleft and the cleft growing Class III individuals. Methods: The treatment group (group I), which comprised ten children (mean age - 8.9 years) with skeletal Class III relationships caused by maxillary retrognathism, was compared with another group (group II) of ten children (mean age - 8.5 years) treated using the Reverse pull head Gear(RPH) and with the untreated control group (group III). Pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms were traced and analyzed. The differences were compared using the student’s paired t-test. Group I and group II were compared by using unpaired t-test. Results: After maxillary protraction, statistically significant anterior movement of the maxilla occurred with an increase in the angle SNA (+2.5°), Maxillary length (+3.6mm) and angle ANB (+3.9°), and anterior movement of A point (3.1mm). Maxillary incisors moved in anterior direction, whereas the mandibular incisors moved posteriorly, which is indicated by Upper incisor to SN (+2°) and Lower incisor to Mandibular plane (-1.9°) respectively.Mandibular changes were non-significant with respect to the angle SNB. Vertical relationship increased minimally with the TTBA. The Class III concave profile became more balanced, with the upper lip area becoming more marked. The TTBA appliance results in a significant improvement of the dentofacial complex that is comparable to or more than the improvement obtained by the RPH. In comparison with the control group, the maxillary length, angle SNA and the angle of facial convexity increased in the patients treated with the TTBA. Conclusion: TTBA is a valuable alternative in treating growing Class III patients with maxillary deficiency, as it promotes patient compliance and is more esthetic and comfortable than the extraoral appliances. Clinical implications: The TTBA is an effective, esthetic, efficient, intraoral semi-fixed functional appliance.It can be used effectively in the treatment of growing skeletal Class III malocclusions whose Class III is on account of mid-facial deficiency.