Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 16, 2025
Author Spotlight: Development of a Novel Finite Element Analysis Model for Improved Orthognathic Surgical Techniques
Published on: October 20, 2023
Long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion: A
Wei-Cheng Lee1,2, Yi-Shing Shieh3, Yu-Fang Liao2,4
1Division of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Department of Dentistry, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Background:
Maxillary protraction with or without expansion is a widely known orthopedic treatment modality in growing skeletal Class III patients. However, limited data are available regarding the outcomes of long-term changes in the maxilla. Aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of the long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following a facemask therapy with or without rapid maxillary expansion in growing skeletal Class III patients.
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published up to Sep. 2020, with maxillary protraction and/or expansion as keywords were included in this meta-analysis. Risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB2.0 and ROBINS-I) and GRADE approach. Overall and subgroup comparisons with the random-effect model were performed in this meta-analysis. Meta-regression models were designed to determine potential heterogeneity.
Results:
There was a statistically significant increase (Mean difference, 2.29°; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.73; and p < 0.001 after facemask (FM) protraction. Mean difference, 1.73°; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.11; and p < 0.001 after rapid maxillary expansion(RME) and facemask protraction) in the Sella-Nasion-A point (SNA) angle in the treatment groups as compared with the control groups, when measured during the less than 3-year follow-up period. However, no statistically significant changes (Mean difference, 0.28°; 95% confidence interval, -0.57-1.13; and p = 0.52 after facemask protraction. Mean difference, 0.34°; 95% confidence interval, -0.64-1.33; and p = 0.50 after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask protraction) were observed in the SNA angle in the groups, when measured after 3 years of follow-up. Meta-regression analysis also showed that with increased follow-up duration, the effectiveness of maxillary protraction decreased.
Conclusion:
This meta-analysis revealed that maxillary protraction therapy could be effective for a short-term in correcting maxillary hypoplasia and the treatment result was not affected by mean age and sex. However, with increased follow-up duration, the sagittal maxillary changes gradually decreased. Limitations on this review were only the SNA angle was used and clinical heterogeneity was not discussed. The quality of evidence was moderate. Further long-term observational studies are necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the effects on maxillary skeletal changes.
