Class III Treatment with Skeletal and Dental Anchorage: A Review of Comparative Effects.

Roberta Clemente,Giuseppe Perinetti,Luca Contardo,Roberto Di Lenarda,Christian Greco

doi:10.1155/2018/7946019

Roberta Clemente, Giuseppe Perinetti + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7946019

Copy DOI

Abstract

Objectives This review addresses the comparative effects of skeletal anchored maxillary protraction (MP) versus dental anchored MP. Materials and Methods The studies retrieved had to have both test and control groups treated by the use of a facemask with or without the use of skeletal anchorage though either (palatal/buccal) maxillary or mandibular miniscrews/miniplates, respectively. Results Nine articles were included. Dentoalveolar changes were seen in all the studies. In particular, a significant proclination of the upper incisors was documented in the group treated with a dental anchorage facial mask, as compared to that treated with skeletal anchorage. Comparing the two methods, almost all the studies indicated a greater maxillary advancement in the group treated with skeletal anchorage. Conclusions Therapies with skeletal anchorage produce greater maxillary protraction, reducing undesirable dental effects.

Highlights

Skeletal Class III malocclusion is one of the most arduous malocclusions to treat in orthodontics
Three studies [20, 21, 23] used the bone-anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) method, placing mandibular miniplates between the lateral incisor and the canine and fixing them with 2 miniscrews and, in the maxillary, miniscrews were inserted between the second premolar and the first molar [20] or 2 miniplates in the infrazigomatic buttress fixed with 3 miniscrews [21, 23]
A significant proclination of the upper incisors was documented in the group treated with a simple facial mask compared to that treated with skeletal anchorage in six studies [20, 22, 25,26,27,28]

Summary

Introduction

Skeletal Class III malocclusion is one of the most arduous malocclusions to treat in orthodontics It can be caused by a retrognathic maxilla, a prognathic mandible, or a combination of both [1, 2]. The facemask (FM) is the common appliance for the treatment of skeletal Class III patients with maxillary retrusion, as it stimulates maxillary advancement and prevents mandibular development [3]. Several studies reported that the use of a facemask in combination with tooth-borne anchorage appliances induces the following skeletal and dental changes: forward movement of the maxilla, downward and backward rotation of the mandible, closing rotation of the palatal plane, proclination of the maxillary incisors, mesialization and extrusion of the maxillary molars, and lingualization of the mandibular incisors [6, 7]. Skeletal anchorage devices show certain disadvantages, they require surgical invasive procedures to insert and remove them, and some of the components may not be stable during the treatment [17]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion