Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aim: Among different treatments of patients with Class III malocclusion , orthopedic protraction of maxilla has been known as an effective method in mixed dentition period. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cephalometric changes of Cl III patients in mixed dentition period following face mask therapy and slow maxillary expansion.

Materials and Methods: This was a before-after study which was conducted on 10 children in mixed dentition period, who had class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency according to the Stiener and Mc Namara's analysis. The patients were all treated by protraction face mask and slow maxillary expansion. The cephalometric changes of maxilla , mandible and dental relations during the treatment were analyzed by Paired sample T Test. P<0.05 was considered as the level of significant.

Results: The overjet increasement was 1.7mm. Co. ANS distance improvement was 5.6mm, Ptm.ANS distance increasing was 3mm, and ultimately improvement of Gf.s distance was 1.5mm which were all statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, face mask therapy with slow maxillary expansion is able to improve the horizotal position of maxilla, in patients with Cl III malocclusion , in mixed dentition period.

Background and Aims: Skeletal class III malocclusions are considered as one of the most complex and difficult orthodontic problems to diagnose and treat. Facial appearance and occlusion problems make the patients to seek treatment as soon as possible. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of early treatment with facemask compared to the patients who had no treatment.

Materials and Methods: For this retrospective study, 38 growing patients (mean age, 8.5 years old) with class III dentoskeletal malocclusion were divided into 2 groups. 23 patients were treated with facemask and 15 patients who did not receive any treatment were assigned as control group. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after treatment and dentoskeletal changes were estimated. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Results: The results revealed statistically significant forward displacement of maxillary bone and upper incisors (P<0.001), and downward-backward rotation of mandible in facemask group (P<0.001). Increased lower facial height was seen in both treatment and untreated groups. However, in untreated group some measurements revealed forward displacement of maxillary complex as well.

Conclusion: It seems that in class III patients treating with facemask is a better choice than ChinCap and decision making for early treatment in class III patients should be considered seriously. Moreover, specific attention to the type of patient’s skeletal discrepancy is necessary. In class III patients, facemask might be a better option than other appliances.