14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment decision in adult patients with class III malocclusion: surgery versus orthodontics

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          One of the most controversial issues in treatment planning of class III malocclusion patients is the choice between orthodontic camouflage and orthognathic surgery. Our aim was to delineate diagnostic measures in borderline class III cases for choosing proper treatment.

          Methods

          The pretreatment lateral cephalograms of 65 patients exhibiting moderate skeletal class III were analyzed. The camouflage group comprised of 36 patients with the mean age of 23.5 (SD 4.8), and the surgery group comprised of 29 patients with the mean age of 24.8 years (SD 3.1). The camouflage treatment consisted of flaring of the upper incisors and retraction of the lower incisors, and the surgical group was corrected by setback of the mandible, maxillary advancement, or bimaxillary surgery. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the variables between the two groups. Stepwise discriminant analysis was applied to identify the dentoskeletal variables that best separate the groups.

          Results

          Holdaway H angle and Wits appraisal were able to differentiate between the patients suitable for orthodontic camouflage or surgical treatment. Cases with a Holdaway angle greater than 10.3° and Wits appraisal greater than − 5.8 mm would be treated successfully by camouflage, while those with a Holdaway angle of less than 10.3° and with Wits appraisal less than − 5.8 mm can be treated surgically. Based on this model, 81.5% of our patients were properly classified.

          Conclusions

          Holdaway H angle and Wits appraisal can be used as a critical diagnostic parameter for determining the treatment modality in class III borderline cases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I.

          This article presents a soft-tissue analysis which demonstrates the inadequacy of using a hard-tissue analysis alone for treatment planning. The material and methods used to develop this technique came from years of observation and description of patients from the private practice of the author. The findings indicate that, in general, for adolescents the normal or usual thickness of the soft tissue at point A is 14 to 16 mm. As point A is altered by tooth movement, headgear, etc., the soft tissue will follow this point and remain the same thickness. When there is taper in the maxillary lip immediately anterior to the incisor, as in protrusive dentures, the tissue will thicken as the incisors are moved lingually until the tissue approaches the thickness at point A (within 1 mm. of the thickness at point A). When the lip taper has been eliminated, further lingual movement of the incisor will now cause the lip to follow the incisors in a one-to-one ratio. These concepts are predictable in adolescents when the lip thickness at point A is within the normal range. Some exceptions are as follows: Even if there is lip taper, if the tissue thickness at point A is very thin (for example, 9 to 10 mm.), the lip may follow the incisor immediately and still retain the taper. If the tissue at point A is very thick (for example, 18 to 20 mm.), the lip may not follow incisor movement at all. Adult tissue reaction is similar to the first exception. Even though there may be lip taper, the lips will usually follow the teeth immediately. Cases are presented to demonstrate these concepts and to illustrate a normal or acceptable range of variation for facial harmony related to variations in skeletal convexity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: orthodontic therapy or orthognathic surgery?

            Class III malocclusion is one of the most difficult anomalies to understand. Because not all Class III patients are candidates for surgical correction, patient assessment and selection remain main issues in diagnosis and treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to separate Class III patients who can be properly treated orthodontically from those who require orthognathic surgery. A large sample size was a necessary to obtain a sufficiently robust model. Thus, a multicentric study design was chosen (Orthodontic Departments of the Universities of Frankfurt, Heidelberg, and Würzburg, Germany). The cephalograms of 175 adult patients with Class III malocclusions were analyzed. The orthodontic group comprised 87 patients, and the surgery group, 88 patients. Twenty linear, proportional, and angular measurements were made. Stepwise discriminant analysis was applied to identify the dentoskeletal variables that best separate the groups. The discriminant function model was highly significant (P <.0001); 92% of the patients were correctly classified. The following variables were extracted: Wits appraisal, length of the anterior cranial base, maxillary/mandibular (M/M) ratio, and lower gonial angle. The resulting equation was: Individual score = -1.805 + 0.209. Wits + 0.044. S-N + 5.689. M/M ratio - 0.056. Go(lower). By means of discriminant analysis, correct classification of adult Class III malocclusion patients succeeded to a very high degree. Of all the variables, the Wits appraisal was the most decisive parameter.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment

              Background Protraction facemask has been advocated for treatment of class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency. Studies using tooth-borne rapid palatal expansion (RPE) appliance as anchorage have experienced side effects such as forward movement of the maxillary molars, excessive proclination of the maxillary incisors, and an increase in lower face height. A new Hybrid Hyrax bone-anchored RPE appliance claimed to minimize the side effects of maxillary expansion and protraction. A retrospective study was conducted to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in patients treated with these two protocols. Methods Twenty class III patients (8 males, 12 females, mean age 9.8 ± 1.6 years) who were treated consecutively with the tooth-borne maxillary RPE and protraction device were compared with 20 class III patients (8 males, 12 females, mean age 9.6 ± 1.2 years) who were treated consecutively with the bone-anchored maxillary RPE and protraction appliances. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the start of treatment and at the end of maxillary protraction. A control group of class III patients with no treatment was included to subtract changes due to growth to obtain the true appliance effect. A custom cephalometric analysis based on measurements described by Bjork and Pancherz, McNamara, Tweed, and Steiner analyses was used to determine skeletal and dental changes. Data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. Results Significant differences between the two groups were found in 8 out of 29 cephalometric variables (p < .05). Subjects in the tooth-borne facemask group had more proclination of maxillary incisors (OLp-Is, Is-SNL), increase in overjet correction, and correction in molar relationship. Subjects in the bone-anchored facemask group had less downward movement of the “A” point, less opening of the mandibular plane (SNL-ML and FH-ML), and more vertical eruption of the maxillary incisors. Conclusions The Hybrid Hyrax bone-anchored RPE appliance minimized the side effect encounter by tooth-borne RPE appliance for maxillary expansion and protraction and may serve as an alternative treatment appliance for correcting class III patients with a hyperdivergent growth pattern.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sara.eslami.sh@gmail.com
                faber.jorge@gmail.com
                Af_fateh@yahoo.com
                farnazsheikhi6@gmail.com
                GrassiaVincenzo@libero.it
                0098-21-22011892 , info@jamilian.net
                Journal
                Prog Orthod
                Prog Orthod
                Progress in Orthodontics
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1723-7785
                2196-1042
                2 August 2018
                2 August 2018
                2018
                : 19
                : 28
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0706 2472, GRID grid.411463.5, Department of Orthodontics, Tehran Dental Branch, Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, , Islamic Azad University, ; No 14, Pesiyan Ave., Vali Asr St., Tehran, 1986944768 Iran
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2238 5157, GRID grid.7632.0, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Health Science, , University of Brasilia, ; Brasilia, Brazil
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0706 2472, GRID grid.411463.5, Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Tehran Dental Branch, , Islamic Azad University, ; Tehran, Iran
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2200 8888, GRID grid.9841.4, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, , University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, ; Naples, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8841-0447
                Article
                218
                10.1186/s40510-018-0218-0
                6070451
                30069814
                3e991235-88eb-4eee-808f-c3f3342d1cca
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 7 April 2018
                : 2 June 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                angle class iii,orthognathic surgery,orthodontics
                angle class iii, orthognathic surgery, orthodontics

                Comments

                Comment on this article