Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jul 2:2018:7946019.
doi: 10.1155/2018/7946019. eCollection 2018.

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

Roberta Clemente  1 , Luca Contardo  1 , Christian Greco  2 , Roberto Di Lenarda  1 , Giuseppe Perinetti  3
Affiliations
Review

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

Roberta Clemente et al. Biomed Res Int. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ellis E., III, McNamara J. A., Jr. Components of adult class III malocclusion. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 1984;42(5):295–305. doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(84)90109-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Toffol L., Pavoni C., Baccetti T., Franchi L., Cozza P. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78(3):561–573. doi: 10.2319/030207-108.1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Franchi L., Baccetti T., McNamara J. A., Jr. Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2004;126(5):555–568. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.036. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cha B. K., Park Y. W., Lee N. K. Two new modalities for maxillary protraction therapy: Intentional ankylosis and distraction osteogenesis. Journal of the Korean Dental Association. 2000;38:997–1007.
    1. Ngan P., Cheung E., Wei S. H. Y. Comparison of Protraction Facemask Response Using Banded and Bonded Expansion Appliances as Anchorage. Seminars in Orthodontics. 2007;13(3):175–185. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2007.05.003. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources