Person:
YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

OrgUnit Logo
Organizational Unit

Job Title

Last Name

YILMAZ

First Name

HANİFE NURAY

Name

Filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20221
Reset filters

Settings

Author: YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY × Subject: Alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy
    (KOREAN ASSOC ORTHODONTISTS, 2019) ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN, ELVAN; Ozbilen, Elvan Onem; Yilmaz, Hanife Nuray; Kucukkeles, Nazan
    Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the changes in the pharyngeal airway (PA), maxillary sinus volume, and skeletal parameters after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) followed by facemask (FM) therapy. Methods: The records of 40 patients with skeletal Class lll malocclusion due to maxillary retrognathism were collected, and the patients were assigned into two groups. The first group comprised 8 male and 12 female patients (mean age, 10.0 +/- 1.1 years) treated using RME/FM for an average of 10 months. The second group comprised 10 male and 10 female patients (mean age, 9.64 +/- 1.3 years) treated using Alt-RAMEC/FM for an average of 12 months. Cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before (TO) and after treatment (T1) were evaluated. Results: Regarding the skeletal effects, significant differences between the groups were the increase in ANS-HRP (perpendicular distance of ANS to the horizontal reference plane, 0.99 mm, p <0.05) in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group and the decrease in PP-SN (palatal plane to Sella-Nasion plane, 0.93 degrees, p < 0.05) in the RME/FM group. Maxillary sinus volumes increased significantly in both the groups, and the increase was statistically significantly higher in the AltRAMEC/FM group. Although no significant intergroup differences were observed in PA volumes, both lower (1,011.19 mm(3)) and total (1,601.21 mm(3)), PA volume increased significantly in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group. Conclusions: The different expansion devices and protocols used with FM therapy do not seem to affect the forward movement of the maxilla and PA volumes. In contrast, the increase in maxillary sinus volume was greater in the Alt-RAMEC/FM protocol.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Soft tissue evaluation after maxillary protraction with RPE or with the ALT-RAMEC protocol A controlled 3D study
    (2022-09-01) ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN, ELVAN; YILMAZ, HANİFE NURAY; ÖNEM ÖZBİLEN E., Ari M. O. , YILMAZ H. N. , Biren S.
    Purpose To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry. Methods Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 +/- 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 +/- 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 +/- 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3-matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed. Results While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 +/- 0.26 mm, 0.3 +/- 0.31 mm, 0.1 +/- 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 +/- 1.26 mm, -0.68 +/- 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 +/- 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups. Conclusion Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.