Effects of facemask therapy in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion in Vietnamese children
Main Article Content
Sparse data are available on the effects of facemask therapy in treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion in Vietnamese children. The purpose of this study was to investigate the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue profile changes following facemask treatment in children with skeletal class III malocclusion. Twenty-four children (7-12 years-old) with skeletal class III malocclusion treated with facemask appliance were included in this study. All lateral cephalograms taken before and after treatment had been manually traced, followed by cephalometric landmark identification and parameter measurements. Significant skeletal, dental and soft tissue profile changes after treatment were recorded and statistically evaluated by paired t test at a 0.05 significance level. After treatment, the maxilla moved forward (SNA increased 1.53 degrees and A–Y increased 1.93 mm; p<0.001). The mandible rotated backwards and downwards (SNB decreased 1.35 degrees; B–Y decreased 1.12mm; p<0.001). These movements in the maxilla and mandible caused a significant improvement in intermaxillary sagittal relationship (ANB increased 2.89degrees; the convexity angle increased 4.7 degrees; Wits appraisal increased 3.77mm; p<0.001). The maxillary incisors moved forward (4.57 degrees). The improvement in overjet was 5.83 mm. The change in Prn-Y and Ls–E measurement was 2.46mm and 2.72mm, respectively. Our results showed that facemask was highly effective for treating skeletal class III malocclusion and improving facial esthetics. Facemask treatment is a highly effective for skeletal class III malocclusion because it leads to positive changes in the jaws, teeth and soft tissue after 1-year of treatment.
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
2. Hardy DK, Cubas YP, Orellana MF. Prevalence of angle Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol. 2012;2(4):75–82. doi:10.4236/ojepi.2012.24012.
3. Campbell PM. The dilemma of Class III treatment. Early or late? Angle Orthod. 1983. 53(3):175–191. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1983)053<0175:TDOCIT>2.0.CO;2.
4. Baccetti T, Tollaro I. A retrospective comparison of functional appliance treatment of Class III malocclusions in the deciduous and mixed dentitions. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):309–317.
5. Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018; 22(10): 99-116. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S134303.
6. Hägg U, Tse A, Bendeus M, Rabie. BM. Long-term follow-up of early treatment with reverse headgear. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(1):95-102. doi: 10.1093/ejo/25.1.95.
7. Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, et al. Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. J Orthod. 2016;43(3):164-175.
8. E Ellis 3rd, J A McNamara Jr. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. Am J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42:295-305.
9. Edmund C. Guyer, Edward E. Ellis III, James A. McNamara, Rolf G. Behrents. Components of Class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod. 1986;56 (1):7–30. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1986)056<0007:COCIMI>2.0.CO;2.
10. Azamian Z, Shirban F. treatment options for Class III malocclusion in growing patients with emphasis on maxillary protraction. Scientifica. 2016;(6):1-9. doi: 10.1155/2016/8105163.
11. Ngan P and Moon W. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;48(1):22-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.012.
12. 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(4): 641-651. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.038.
13. Menéndez‐Díaz I, Muriel J, Cobo JL, Álvarez C, Cobo T. Early treatment of Class III malocclusion with facemask therapy. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018; 4(6):27 9-283. doi: 10.1002/cre2.144. eCollection 2018 Dec.
14. Nartallo-Turley PE, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1998;68(3):217-224. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1998)068<0217:CEOCPE>2.3.CO;2.
15. Ngan P, Wei SH, Hagg U, Yiu CK, Merwin D, Stickel B. Effects of protraction headgear on class III malocclusion. Quintessence Int. 1992;23(3):197-207.
16. Sar C, Sahinoglu Z, Ozcipici AA, Uckand S. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(1):41-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.009.
17. Yüksel S, Uçem TT, Keykubat A. Early and late facemask therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23(5):559-568. doi: 10.1093/ejo/23.5.559.
18. Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Prog Orthod. 2015; 16:26. doi: 10.1186/s40510-015-0096-7.