Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2019 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocol: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Pages
47–51
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this review, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofthe studies, which include successful treatments by applying this protocol, differences with other methods, its effect on the airway,and its advantages and disadvantages.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this comprehensive review is to introduce clinicians to the increasingly popularity Alt-RAMEC procedure, a method com-monly used in the treatment of class III malocclusion in the last 15 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the Alt-RAMEC protocol, maxillae will be enlarged to be 1 mm per day, first enlarged to 7 mm, and then the 1 mm screw isclosed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this review, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofthe studies, which include successful treatments by applying this protocol, differences with other methods, its effect on the airway,and its advantages and disadvantages.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The aim of this comprehensive review is to introduce clinicians to the increasingly popularity Alt-RAMEC procedure, a method com-monly used in the treatment of class III malocclusion in the last 15 years. Another application of the literature to enhance the skeletaleffects of Class III treatment on the maxillae is the Alternative Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction (Alt-RAMEC) procedureintroduced by Liou, which improves the effectiveness of the maxillae relative to the surrounding sutures and the enhancement of themaxillae. In the Alt-RAMEC protocol, maxillae will be enlarged to be 1 mm per day, first enlarged to 7 mm, and then the 1 mm screw isclosed. In other weeks, in this order the screw of the expansion device is turned on for one week and then closed for one week, com-pleting the Alt-RAMEC protocol at the end of the 9-week process. In this review, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofthe studies, which include successful treatments by applying this protocol, differences with other methods, its effect on the airway,and its advantages and disadvantages.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÜYÜKÇAVUŞ, M. H. (2019). Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocol: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 47–51. https://ajindex.com/articles/375018

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Gürsoy N. Ortodontinin Biyolojik Temelleri, İstanbul: Doyuran 1988. Gysel C. La progenie dans la famille de Dürer. Trans Europ Orthod Soc 1970; 55-60.
  2. Litton SF, Ackerman LV, Isaacson J, Shapiro BL. A genetic study of Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1970; 58: 565-77. [CrossRef ] Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopedics or orthognathic surgery: is it matter of age? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 571-4. [CrossRef ] Ngan PW, Deguchi T, Roberts EW. Orthodontic Treatment of Class III Malocclusion. 2014.
  3. Sung SJ, Baik HS. Assessment of skeletal and dental changes by maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 492-502. [CrossRef ] Nanda R. Protraction of maxilla in rhesus monkeys by controlled extraoral forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1978; 74: 121-41. [CrossRef ] Jackson GW, Kokich VG, Shapiro PA. Experimental and postexperi- mental response to anteriorly directed extraoral force in young Ma- caca nemestrina. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1979; 75: 318-33. [CrossRef ] Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and face- mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 404-13. [CrossRef ] Yu HS, Baik HS, Sung SJ, Kim KD, Cho YS. Three-dimensional fini- teelement analysis of maxillary protraction with and without rapid palatal expansion. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 118-25. [CrossRef ] Sar C, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Uckan S, Yazici AC. Comparative evalua- tion of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 636-49. [CrossRef ] Liou EJ. Effective maxillary orthopedic protraction for growing Class III patients: a clinical application simulates distraction osteogenesis. Prog Orthod 2005; 6: 154-71.
  4. Wilmes B, Ngan P, Liou EJ, Franchi L, Drescher D. Early class III face- mask treatment with the hybrid hyrax and Alt-RAMEC protocol. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48: 84-93.
  5. Liou EJ, Tsai WC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary ex- pansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42: 21-7. [CrossRef ] Haas AJ. Long-term posttreatment evaluation of rapid palatal ex- pansion. Angle Orthod 1980; 50: 189-217. da Luz Vieira G, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Rizzatto S. Dentoskel- etal Effects of Maxillary Protraction in Cleft Patients With Repetitive Weekly Protocol of Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Con- strictions. Cleft Palate Cra