Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S202
Submitted: 04-04-2022
Published: 04-04-2022

Ortho-surgical treatment of maxillary in Class III patients with severe mandibular protrusion and middle line deviation: a systematic review

Dentistry Department, Quito, Ecuador; UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Malocclusion Class III malocclusion Orthodontics Treatments

Abstract

Introduction: In Brazil, malocclusion is found in ages between 7 and 15 years with a prevalence of 6%. In this scenario, Class III malocclusion affects between 5% and 15% of the entire Brazilian population. Orthodontics stands out due to its strong aesthetic compromise and unfavorable treatment prognosis, especially when there is a hereditary component. It is suggested that most cases of Class III malocclusion have maxillary retrusion or hypoplasia, which may or may not be associated with mandibular prognathism. Thus, several treatment modalities are proposed for the correction of Class III malocclusion. Objective: To explore the literary findings of the importance of knowing advances in orthodontics for the treatment of class III malocclusion. Methods: Experimental and clinical studies (case reports, retrospective, prospective and randomized) with qualitative and/or quantitative analysis were included, following the rules of the systematic review-PRISMA. 289 articles were initially found and, after selection, 54 articles were used to compose this study. Results and conclusion: According to the literary findings, the treatment of Class III should be fundamentally based on the diagnosis so that the treatment can be installed in order to correct the compromised structures instead of being compensated in places not affected by this malocclusion. In other words, the degree of involvement of the maxilla and mandible must be evaluated so that the treatment is directed to that bone base and really achieves its goals and impacts of facial improvement. Redirection of growth in Class III cases is indicated as soon as the anomaly is diagnosed, as the displacement processes that occur in the middle face can only be affected with treatment while the growth zones are able to respond to the biomechanical stimulus. Therefore, the younger the Class III patient is treated, the better the facial correction effects.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Doriguêtto PVT, Carrada CF, Scalioni FAR, et al. Malocclusion in children and adolescents with Down syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29(4):524-541. doi:10.1111/ipd.12491.
  2. Watkinson S, Harrison JE, Furness S, Worthington HV. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (9):CD003451.
  3. Seehra J, Fleming PS, Mandall N, Dibiase AT. A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:96-101.
  4. Liu ZP, Li CJ, Hu HK, Chen JW, Li F, Zou SJ. Efficacy of short-term chincup therapy for mandibular growth retardation in Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2011;81:162-8.
  5. Kurt H, Alioglu C, Karayazgan B, Tuncer N, Kilicoglu H. The effects of two methods of Class III malocclusion treatment on temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:636-41.
  6. Saleh M, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Assessment of pain and discomfort during early orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion using the Removable Mandibular Retractor Appliance. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14:119-24.
  7. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent. Cosmos. 1899;41:248-64.
  8. Sanborn RT. Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of Class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1955;25:208-22.
  9. Guyer EC, Ellis EE, McNamara JA, Behrents RG. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod. 1986;56:7-30.
  10. Ellis E 3rd, McNamara JA Jr. Components of adult Class III open-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:277-90.
  11. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Behnaz M, Ghassemi M, Ghassemi A. The short-term effects of Face mask and Fixed Tongue Appliance on Maxillary Deficiency in Growing Patients – A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Orthod. 2015;26(1)29-34.
  12. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby; 2007.
  13. Haynes S. The prevalence of malocclusion in English children aged 11–12 years. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc. 1970:89-98.
  14. Cobourne M. Early treatment for class III malocclusion. J Orthod. 2016;43(3):159-160. doi:10.1080/14653125.2016.1215860.
  15. Agostino P, Ugolini A, Signori A, Silvestrini-Biavati A, Harrison JE, Riley P. 2014. Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 8: CD000979.
  16. Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, Dyer F, Littlewood S, Mattick R, et al. 2016. Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery. A multicentre, two-arm parallel randomised, controlled trial. J Orthod. 43: 164–175.
  17. Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, Nute S, Stivaros N, McDowall R, et al. 2010. Is early class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up. J Orthod. 37: 149–161.
  18. Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD. 2013. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 11: CD003452.
  19. Irie M, Nakamura S. Orthopedic approach to severe skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1975;67:377-92.
  20. Woon SC, Thiruvenkatachari B. Early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):28-52. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.017].
  21. Baik HS, Han HK, Kim DJ, Proffit WR. Cephalometric characteristics of Korean Class III surgical patients and their relationship to plans for surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 2000;15:119-28.
  22. Chan GK. Class III malocclusion in Chinese: etiology and treatment. Am J Orthod. 1974;65:152–56.
  23. De Toffol L, Pavoni C, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Orthopedic Treatment Outcomes in Class III Malocclusion A Systematic Review. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:561-73.
  24. Turchetta BJ, Fishman LS, Subtelny JD. Facial growth prediction: a comparison of methodologies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:439-49.
  25. Yoshida I, Yamaguchi N, Mizoguchi I. Predction of post-treatment outcome after combined treatment with maxillary protraction and chincup appliances. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:89-96.
  26. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128:299-309.
  27. Ge YS, Liu J, Chen L, Han JL, Guo X. Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction: Miniscrew implants versus rapid maxillary expanders. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1083-91.
  28. Jamilian A, Haraji A, Showkatbakhsh R, Valaee N. The Effects of Miniscrew with Class III Traction in Growing Patients with Maxillary Deficiency. Int Journal Orthod. 2011;22:25-30.
  29. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Ghassemi M, Ghassemi A, Taban T, Imani Z. The Effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients. Journal of Orthod. 2012;39:95-101.
  30. Abdelnaby YL, Nassar EA. Chin cup effects using two different force magnitudes in the management of Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:957-62.
  31. Showkatbakhsh R, Toumarian L, Jamilian A, Sheibaninia A, Mirkarimi M, Taban T. The effects of facemask and tongue plate on maxillary deficiency in growing patients: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Orthod. 2013;40:130-36.
  32. Ülgen M, Firatli S. The effects of Fränkel’s function regulator on the class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105:561-67.
  33. Atalay Z, Tortop T. Dentofacial effects of a modified tandem traction bow appliance. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:655-61.
  34. Arman A, Toygar, TU, Abuhijleh, E. Evaluation of maxillary protraction and fixed appliance therapy in Class III patients. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:383-92.
  35. Mandal NA, Cousley R, DiBiase A, Dyer F, Littlewood S, Mattick R. et al. Is early class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 3-year follow-up. Journal of Orthod. 2012;39:176-85.
  36. Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148:641-51.
  37. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Taban T,Golrokh M. The effects of Face mask and Tongue Appliance on Maxillary Deficiency in growing patients: A randomized clinical trial. Progress in orthodontics. 2012;13:266-72.
  38. Seehra J, Fleming PS, Mandall N, DiBiase AT. A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:96–101.
  39. Kim JH, Viana MAG, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA. The effectiveness of protraction facemask therapy: A meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;115:675-85.
  40. Watkinson S, Harrison JE, Furness S, Worthington HV. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9.
  41. Cordasco G, Matarese G, Rustico L, Fastuca S, Caprioglio A, Lindauer SJ et al. Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014;17:133-43.
  42. Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, Hechtner M, Wehrbein H. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest. 2015;19:1181-92.
  43. Morales-Fernández M, Iglesias-Linares A, Yañez-Vico RM, MendozaMendoza A, Solano-Reina E. Bone- and dentoalveolar-anchored dentofacial orthopedics for Class III malocclusion: New approaches, similar objectives? A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:540-52.
  44. Ye C, Zhihe Z, Zhao Q, Ye J. Treatment Effects of Distal Movement of Lower Arch With Miniscrews in the Retromolar Area Compared With Miniscrews in the Posterior Area of the Maxillary. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24:1974-79.
  45. Chatzoudi MI, Ioannidou-Marathiotou I, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical effectiveness of chin cup treatment for the management of Class III malocclusion in pre-pubertal patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Progress in Orthodontics. 2014;15:62.
  46. Yang X, Li C, Bai D, Su N, Chen T, Xu Y, et al. Treatment effectiveness of Fränkel function regulator on the Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:143-54.
  47. Saleh M, Hajeer Y, Al-Jundi A. Short-term soft- and hard-tissue changes following Class III treatment using a removable mandibular retractor: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2013;16:75-86.
  48. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH. Vogels DS 3rd. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 3: more breakdowns of selected variables. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43:22-33.
  49. McNamara JA JR, Brudon WL. Orth odontics and dentofacial orthopedics. Ann Arbor, Mich: Needham Press; 2001.
  50. Turley PK. Orthopedic correction of Class III malocclusion with palatal expansion and custom protraction headgear. J Clin Orthod. 1988;22:314-25.
  51. Tuncer BB, Kaygisiz E, Tuncer C, Yuksel S. Pharyngeal airway dimensions after chin cup treatment in Class III malocclusion subjects. J Oral Rehab. 2009;36:110-17.
  52. Liu C, Hou M, Liang L, Huang X, Zhang T, Zhang H, et al. Sutural distraction osteogenesis (SDO) versus osteotomy distraction osteogenesis (ODO) for midfacial advancement: A new technique and primary clinical report. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16:537-48.
  53. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:440-49.
  54. De Clerck HJ, Cornelis MA, Cevidanes LH, Heymann GC, Tulloch CJ. Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with mini- plates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:2123-29.

How to Cite

Viana Solis, L. N., Moura, R. F., Benetton, A., & Moura Neto, G. (2022). Ortho-surgical treatment of maxillary in Class III patients with severe mandibular protrusion and middle line deviation: a systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S2). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S202