Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Maxillofacial growth changes after maxillary protraction therapy in children with class III malocclusion: a dual
Shukui Xu1, Yang Liu1, Yan Hou1
1Department of Orthodontics, Hebei Key Laboratory of Stomatology & Hebei Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Hebei Medical University, Shijiahzuang, 050017, China.
Purpose:
To investigate the balance between post-treatment effect and continued nature growth after maxillary protraction treatment in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion.
Methods:
31 patients aged 8.79 ± 1.65 years with skeletal Class III malocclusion had been treated with maxillary protraction and the treatment lasted an average of 1.16 years. The average observation duration after treatment in the maxillary protraction group was 2.05 ± 0.39 years. In the control groups, a sample of 22 patients (9.64 ± 2.53 years) with untreated skeletal class III malocclusion and 24 patients (9.28 ± 0.96 years) with skeletal class I malocclusion were matched to the treatment group according to age, sex and observation period. The mean observation interval of the control groups was 2.39 ± 1.29 years in the class III group and 1.97 ± 0.49 years in the class I group.
Results:
The active orthopedic treatment effect showed a opposite trend to the natural craniomaxillofacial growth effect after treatment in many aspects. In the observation duration of treatment group, decrease in ANB, Wits appraisal and BAr-AAr were statistically significant compared to class I control group (p < 0.001), and there was a significant increase in NA-FH (P < 0.001) which was contrary to class III control group. Treatment group presented a significant increase in Gn-Co (P < 0.01) and Co-Go (P < 0.001), except for changes in the extent of the mandibular base (Pog-Go, P = 0.149) compared to class I control group. The vertical maxillomandibular skeletal variables (Gonial; MP-SN; MP-FH; Y-axis) in treatment group decreased significantly compared to those in class III control group (P < 0.01). U1-SN and L1-MP showed a significant increase, which was similar to the class I group (P > 0.05), and overjet decreased significantly relative to both of the two control groups (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Maxillary protraction therapy led to stable outcomes in approximately 77.42% of children with Class III malocclusion approximately 2 years after treatment. Unfavorable skeletal changes were mainly due to the greater protrusion of the mandible but maxillary protraction did have a certain degree of postimpact on the mandibular base. Protraction therapy does not fundamentally change the mode of maxillary growth in Class III subjects except for the advancement of the maxilla. Craniomaxillofacial region tend to restabilize after treatment and lead to skeletal growth rotation and more dentoalveolar compensation.
