Abstract
Abstract Aim To evaluate the differences in pretreatment and post-treatment characteristics of Class III patients treated with orthodontic camouflage or orthognathic surgery, and to compare the range of skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes that are likely to occur with treatment, with particular reference to the influence of extractions on the resultant incisor angulations. Method Pretreatment and post-treatment cephalograms of 31 Class III orthodontically-camouflaged patients and 36 Class III surgical patients (without genioplasty) were obtained from one specialist practice. From the surgical group, 26 pre-surgical lateral cephalograms were also obtained. Inclusion criteria for the two groups were at least three of the following: (1) an ANB angle of 1 degree or less, (2) a Wits appraisal less than -4 mm, (3) an incisal overjet ≤0 mm, and (4) a Class III molar relationship. All lateral cephalograms were traced and digitised and a number of skeletal, dental and soft tissue variables were measured. The camouflage and surgical groups were also divided into premolar extraction and non-extraction subgroups to allow for a specific analysis of extraction effects. Results Before treatment, the surgical group demonstrated, on average, a more severe skeletal discrepancy and increased dental compensations, compared with the orthodontically camouflaged group. After treatment, the mean SNA angle was greater, the ANB angle was more positive, the Wits appraisal was closer to ideal and the lower incisors were less retroclined in the surgery group. There was a small mean reduction in horizontal chin projection in the surgery group compared with a small increase in the camouflage group. The mentolabial fold and the lower lip curve were deeper, on average, and the lips less retrusive after surgery. There was a mean increase in upper incisor proclination during treatment in both the surgical and camouflage groups with a greater increase in the camouflage group. There was a significant reduction in upper incisor proclination and a subsequent greater increase in the ANB angle associated with upper premolar extractions in the surgical group compared with the non-extraction group. Lower premolar extractions in the camouflage group resulted only in a deeper mentolabial fold compared with those treated without lower extractions. Conclusions Class III patients selected for surgical treatment are likely to have more severe pretreatment dental and skeletal discrepancies than those selected for camouflage treatment. Surgical treatment is associated with significant decompensation of the lower incisors but, ultimately, not the upper incisors. Class III patients treated with either camouflage or surgery treatment are likely to finish with slightly proclined upper incisors. Generally, surgical treatment results in greater skeletal change, involving normalisation of the skeletal base relationship, a reduction in chin prominence, fuller lips, and a more favourable lip and chin contour.
Highlights
The aesthetic and functional goals of treatment for a skeletal Class III malocclusion can be achieved using one of four methods: (1) attempted modification of growth so that the jaw discrepancy is reduced or Australian Orthodontic Journal Volume 31 No 2 November 2015 resolved, (2) tooth movements to compensate for the jaw discrepancy, (3) a combination of the two, or (4) surgical movements to reposition the skeletal bases
Despite the fact that the lower incisors were significantly more retroclined on average, the reverse overjet for the surgical group was only 2.5 mm more severe compared with the camouflage group
While accepting individual variation and the limitations of any cephalometric study, the following clinical conclusions may be drawn: 1. Class III patients selected for camouflage treatment are likely to have less severe pretreatment dental and skeletal discrepancies than patients selected for surgical treatment
Summary
The aesthetic and functional goals of treatment for a skeletal Class III malocclusion can be achieved using one of four methods: (1) attempted modification of growth so that the jaw discrepancy is reduced or Australian Orthodontic Journal Volume 31 No 2 November 2015 resolved, (2) tooth movements to compensate for the jaw discrepancy (orthodontic ‘camouflage’), (3) a combination of the two, or (4) surgical movements to reposition the skeletal bases. Successful camouflage treatment involves the incorporation of dentoalveolar compensations, which make the underlying skeletal problem less apparent, while allowing for an improvement in occlusion, function and aesthetics.[8,9,10] The main objectives of combined orthodontic and orthognathic surgery treatment are to correct the malocclusion, establish optimal function, and restore facial balance and harmony.[11,12] This often involves the correction of the main dental and skeletal variables to within a range of accepted cephalometric values.[12] A number of authors have attempted to provide specific cephalometric guidelines regarding the most appropriate treatment plan for any given patient.[8,13,14,15,16] While some treatment effects of orthodontic camouflage[17,18,19,20] and orthognathic surgery[12,21,22,23] have been documented in the literature, only rarely have these two methods been directly compared.[10,16]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
