Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-03-2016 | Original Article

Compensation of skeletal Class III malocclusion by isolated extraction of mandibular teeth

Part 2: Skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue parameters in comparison with nonextraction Class III therapies

Authors: Bernd Zimmer, Sarah Gaida, Henning Dathe

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 2/2016

Abstract

Objectives

To retrospectively compare two compensatory approaches taken in skeletal Class III patients during the main treatment stage, including a study group of multiband treatment plus isolated extraction of mandibular teeth and a control group of multiband treatment without extraction of teeth.

Patients and methods

The extraction group included 22 (12 female, 10 male) patients receiving compensatory multiband treatment for a mean of 3.47 ± 1.14 years and 16.22 ± 1.92 years old at debonding. The nonextraction group included 24 (14 female, 10 male) patients undergoing multiband treatment for 2.76 ± 1.28 years and 15.38 ± 1.46 years old at debonding. Lateral cephalograms obtained at baseline and upon completion of active treatment were traced for skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue parameters. Welch and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze intergroup differences (initial values, final values, initial-to-final changes) and within-group differences (p < 0.05).

Results

Upon completion of active treatment, the only significant intergroup differences were noted for U1NA and L1ML. Significant within-group changes over the courses of treatment were seen for SNB, MLNL, U1NA, U1NL, L1NB, L1ML, H-angle, ULipEL, and LLipEL (extraction group) or for SNB, ANB, individual ANB, Wits appraisal, U1NA, U1NL, H-angle, Naslab-a, ULipEL, and LLipEL (nonextraction group). Parameters that changed by significantly different amounts in both groups included Wits appraisal, L1NB, L1ML, and LLipEL.

Conclusion

The added value of isolated extraction therapy basically lies in increasing the potential for retruding the lower incisor inclinations, so that compensatory treatment becomes an option even in selected patients presenting with adverse occlusal situations that would otherwise require orthognathic surgery. Given the successful outcomes in both groups, which had been established by Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores, it was possible to define the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue characteristics of successful treatment more precisely than before.

Amini F, Poosti M (2013) A new approach to correct a Class III malocclusion with miniscrews: a case report. J Calif Dent Assoc 41:197–200PubMed

Angermann R, Berg R (1999) Evaluation of orthodontic treatment success in patients with pronounced Angle Class III. J Orofac Orthop 60:246–258CrossRefPubMed

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara (2004) Cephalometric variables predicting the long-term success or failure of combined rapid maxillary expansion and facial mask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126:16–22CrossRef

Baccetti T, De Clerk HJ, Cevidanes LH et al (2011) Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing Class III patients. Eur J Orthod 33:121–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Battagel J, Orton H (1991) Class III malocclusion: a comparison of extraction and non-extraction techniques. Europ J Orthod 13:212–222CrossRef

Battagel J (1993) Discriminant analysis: a model for the prediction of relapse in Class III children treated orthodontically by a non-extraction technique. Eur J Orthod 15:199–209CrossRefPubMed

Benyahia H, Azaroual MF, Garcia C et al (2011) Treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusions: orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage? How to decide. Int Orthod 9:196–209PubMed

Björk A, Skieller V (1976) Postnatal growth and development of the maxillary complex. In: McNamara JA Jr (ed) Factors affecting the growth of the midface, Monograph 6, Craniofacial Growth Series. Center for Human Growth and Development. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp 61–99

Borrie F, Bearn D (2011) Early correction of anterior crossbites: a systematic review. J Orthod 38:175–184CrossRefPubMed

10.

Costa Pinho TM, Ustrell Torrent JM, Correla Pinto JG (2004) Orthodontic camouflage in the case of a skeletal class III malocclusion. World J Orthod 5:213–223PubMed

11.

El-Batouti A, Ögaard B, Bishara SE (1994) Longitudinal cephalometric standards for Norwegians between the age of 6 and 18 years. Eur J Orthod 16:501–509CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ellis E, McNamara JA (1984) Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:295–305CrossRefPubMed

13.

Farret MM, Benitez Farret MM (2013) Skeletal class III malocclusion treated using a non-surgical approach supplemented with mini-implants: a case report. J Orthod 40:256–263CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ferro A, Nucci LP, Ferro F et al (2003) Long-term stability of skeletal Class III patients treated with splints, Class III elastics, and chincup. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 123:423–434CrossRef

15.

Franchi L, Baccetti T, Tollaro I (1997) Predictive variables for the outcome of early functional treatment of Cl III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 112:80–86CrossRef

16.

Fudalej P, Dragan M, Wedrychowska-Szulc B (2011) Prediction of the outcome of orthodontic treatment of Class III malocclusions-a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 33:190–197CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ghassemi M, Jamilian A, Becker JR et al (2014) Soft-tissue changes associated with different surgical procedures for treating class III patients. J Orofac Orthop 75:299–307CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ghiz MA, Ngan P, Gunel E (2005) Cephalometric variables to predict future success of early orthopedic Class III treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:301–306CrossRef

19.

He S, Gao J, Wamala P et al (2013) Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with multiloop edgewise arch wire and modified Class III elastics by maxillary mini-implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 83:630–640CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hino CT, Cevidanes LH, Nguyen TT et al (2013) Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthod 144:705–714CrossRef

21.

Hu H, Chen J, Guo J et al (2012) Distalization of the mandibular dentition of an adult with a skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthod 142:854–862CrossRef

22.

Jacobs C, Jacobs-Müller C, Hoffmann V et al (2012) Dental compensation for moderate Class III with vertical growth pattern by extraction of two lower second molars. J Orofac Orthop 73:41–48CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jacobson A, Evans WG, Preston CG et al (1974) Mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 66:140–171CrossRefPubMed

24.

Johnston C, Burden D, Kennedy D et al (2005) Class III surgical-orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthod 128:787–794CrossRef

25.

Keeling SD, Riolo ML, Martin RE et al (1989) A multivariate approach to analyzing the relation between occlusion and craniofacial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 95:297–305CrossRef

26.

Kim SJ, Kim KH, Yu HS et al (2014) Dentoalveolar compensation according to skeletal discrepancy and overjet in skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:317–324CrossRef

27.

Ko YI, Baek SH, Mah J et al (2004) Determinants of successful chincup therapy in skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126:33–41CrossRef

28.

Lu YC, Tanne K, Hirano Y et al (1993) Craniofacial morphology of adolescent mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod 63:277–282PubMed

29.

Moon YM, Ahn SJ, Chang YI (2005) Cephalometric predictors of long-term stability in the early treatment of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 75:747–753PubMed

30.

Ngan PW, Wei SH (2004) Early treatment of Class III patients to improve facial esthetics and predict future growth. Hong Kong Dent J 1:28–34

31.

Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Franchi L et al (2015) Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination: a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 85:764–770CrossRefPubMed

32.

Niwa K, Kushimoto K, Yamamoto T (1990) Mandibular first premolar extraction in skeletal Class III malocclusion. Gifu Shika Gakkai Zasshi 17:330–338PubMed

33.

Richmond S, Shaw WC, O`Brien KD et al (1992) The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 14:125–139CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ruellas AC, Baratieri C, Roma MB et al (2012) Angle Class III malocclusion treated with first molar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 142:384–392CrossRef

35.

Sato S (1994) Case report: developmental characterization of skeletal Cl.III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 64:105–111PubMed

36.

Schuster G, Lux CJ, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A (2003) Children with Class III malocclusion: development of multivariate statistical models to predict future need for orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 73:136–145PubMed

37.

Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Ghassemi M et al (2012) The effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients. J Orthod 39:95–101CrossRefPubMed

38.

Silveira GS, de Dauw JH, Motta AT et al (2014) Compensatory orthodontic treatment for maxillary deficiency: a 4-year follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:227–237CrossRef

39.

Stellzig-Eisenhauer A, Lux CJ, Schuster G (2002) Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:27–38CrossRef

40.

Sugawara J, Asano T, Endo N et al (1990) Long-term effects of chincap therapy on skeletal profile in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 98:127–133CrossRef

41.

Tahmina K, Tanaka E, Tanne K (2000) Craniofacial morphology in orthodontically treated patients of Class III malocclusion with stable and unstable treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 117:681–690CrossRef

42.

Tai K, Park JH, Tatamiya M et al (2013) Distal movement of the mandibular dentition with temporary skeletal anchorage devices to correct a Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:715–725CrossRef

43.

Troy BA, Shanker S, Fields HW et al (2009) Comparison of incisor inclination in patients with Class III malocclusion treated with orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:1–9CrossRef

44.

Tseng YC, Pan CY, Chou ST et al (2011) Treatment of adult Class III malocclusions with orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery: receiving operating characteristic analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:485–493CrossRef

45.

Wells AP, Sarver DM, Proffit WR (2006) Long-term efficacy of reverse pull headgear therapy. Angle Orthod 76:915–922CrossRefPubMed

46.

Westwood PV, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T et al (2003) Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 123:306–320CrossRef

47.

Yang Z, Ding Y, Feng X (2011) Developing skeletal Class III malocclusion treated nonsurgically with a combination of a protraction facemask and a multiloop edgewise archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:245–255CrossRef

48.

Yoshida I, Ishii H, Yamaguchi N et al (1999) Maxillary protraction and chincap appliance treatment effects and long-term changes in skeletal Class III patients. Angle Orthod 69:543–552PubMed

49.

Yoshida I, Yamaguchi N, Mizoguchi I (2006) Prediction of post-treatment outcome after combined treatment with maxillary protraction and chincup appliances. Eur J Orthod 28:89–96CrossRefPubMed

50.

Zentner A, Doll GM, Peylo M (2001) Morphological parameters as predictors of successful correction of Class III malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 23:383–392CrossRefPubMed

51.

Zhang H, Deng F, Wang H et al (2013) Early orthodontic intervention followed by fixed appliance therapy in a patient with severe Class III malocclusion and cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:726–736CrossRef

52.

Zhylich D, Suri S (2011) Mandibular extraction: a systematic review of an uncommon extraction choice in orthodontic treatment. J Orthod 38:185–195CrossRefPubMed

53.

Zimmer B, Schenk-Kazan S (2015) Dental compensation for skeletal class III malocclusion by isolated extraction of mandibular teeth. Part 1: occlusal situation 12 years after completion of active treatment. J Orofac Orthop 76:251–264CrossRefPubMed

Title: Compensation of skeletal Class III malocclusion by isolated extraction of mandibular teeth
Part 2: Skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue parameters in comparison with nonextraction Class III therapies
Authors: Bernd Zimmer
Sarah Gaida
Henning Dathe
Publication date: 01-03-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0016-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Compensation of skeletal Class III malocclusion by isolated extraction of mandibular teeth

Part 2: Skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue parameters in comparison with nonextraction Class III therapies

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Shear bond strength of brackets on restorative materials

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Effect of sex steroids on bone formation in an orthopedically expanded suture in rats

Virtual facial reconstruction based on accurate registration and fusion of 3D facial and MSCT scans

Natural head position and lower incisor irregularity

Oral health-related quality of life after orthodontic treatment for anterior tooth alignment