| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 11
| Issue : 1 | Page : 8 |
|
|
Bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP): A review
Apoorva Kamath1, Shetty Suhani Sudhakar1, Greeshma Kannan1, Kripal Rai2, SB Athul3
1 Department of Orthodontics, Srinivas Institute of Dental Sciences, Mukka, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Public Health Dentistry, Srinivas Institute of Dental Sciences, Mukka, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Orthodontics, Kannur Dental College, Kerala, India
Correspondence Address:
Apoorva Kamath
Department of Orthodontics, Srinivas Institute of Dental Sciences, Mukka, Mangaluru - 574146, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_153_21
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION: Protraction therapy for maxillary deficiency in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion involves the use of facemask. Conventionally facemask has been anchored to the maxillary dentition, which is responsible for some of the counter-productive effects of facemask therapy including backward and downward rotation of the chin, increase in the lower anterior facial height, proclination of maxillary incisors, retroclination of mandibular incisors apart from mesialization of maxillary molars with extrusion and decreased overbite.
AIM: The aim of this article is to highlight the nuances of Bone-Anchored Maxillary Protraction (BAMP) including a literature review, which is comprehensive and narrative and comparing the different techniques involved such as type 1 BAMP versus type 2 BAMP and BAMP versus facemask.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computerized search was performed in electronic databases such as PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, Embase, DOAJ, and Google scholar using key words such as “bone-anchored maxillary protraction” and “BAMP.” The search was confined to articles in English published till March 2021. Forty-seven case-controlled, cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective studies, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analysis were included in this article, which were limited to human subjects. A hand search of the reference lists of the included articles was also carried out to include missed out articles.
CONCLUSION: To overcome these drawbacks, BAMP was introduced, which causes both maxillary protraction, restraint of mandibular growth with minimal dentoalveolar changes. BAMP is used widely nowadays in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
