The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Removable Mandibular Retractor vs the Boneanchored Intermaxillary Traction in the Correction of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Mohammad Y Hajeer, Abdulmalek MR Majanni

Citation Information : Hajeer MY, Majanni AM. The Removable Mandibular Retractor vs the Boneanchored Intermaxillary Traction in the Correction of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (5):361-371.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1856

Published Online: 00-05-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

No randomized controlled trial has tried to compare early class III treatment outcomes between the removable mandibular retractor (RMR) and the bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT). The objective of this study was to evaluate skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes following early class III treatment with these two treatment modalities.

Materials and methods

A parallel group randomized controlled trial was conducted on patients with class III malocclusion, treated at the University of Al-Baath Dental School in Hamah, Syria. Ninetythree children with skeletal class III malocclusion were evaluated and 41 children fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Randomization was performed using computer-generated tables; allocation was concealed using sequentially numbered opaque and sealed envelopes. Thirty-eight participants were analyzed (mean age 11.46 ± 1.28 years). They were randomly distributed into two groups receiving either the RMR or the BAIMT technique with 19 children in each (1:1 allocation ratio). The primary outcome measure was the horizontal movement of points A, B, and Pogonion.

Results

Point A showed greater anterior movement in the BAIMT group (x̄ = 1.69 mm) than in the RMR group (x̄ = 1.05 mm; p < 0.001). Points B and Pog showed posterior movement in the BAIMT group (x̄ = −3.01 and −2.51 mm respectively) and anterior movements in the RMR group (x̄ = 0.22 and 0.78 mm respectively).

Conclusion

The BAIMT appeared to be more effective than the RMR in the correction of mild to moderate class III malocclusion in growing patients.

Clinical significance

Bone-anchored intermaxillary elastics appears to be a promising solution for class III growing patients with mild to moderate degrees of skeletal discrepancy.

How to cite this article

Majanni AMR, Hajeer MY. The Removable Mandibular Retractor vs the Bone-anchored Intermaxillary Traction in the Correction of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(5):361-371.


PDF Share
  1. Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Sep;138(3):300-310.
  2. Ziele und ergebnisse extraoraler Zuge in posrero-anteriorer Richtung in anwendung einer orthopadischen Maske bei der Behandlung von Fallen der Klasse III. Fortschr Kiefer Orthop 1976;37:246-262.
  3. Maxillary retrusion in class 3 and treatment with the function corrector 3. Rep Congr Eur Orthod Soc 1970:46:249-259.
  4. Skeletal and dental modifications produced by the Bionator III appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998 Jul;114(1):40-44.
  5. Chin cup therapy for mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod 1977;72(1):23-41.
  6. Short-term soft- and hardtissue changes following class III treatment using a removable mandibular retractor: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2013 May;16(2):75-86.
  7. A retrospective comparison of functional appliance treatment of class III malocclusions in the deciduous and mixed dentitions. Eur J Orthod 1998 Jun;20(3):309-317.
  8. Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009 Oct;67(10):2123-2129.
  9. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Feb;137(2):274-284.
  10. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Nov;138(5):577-581.
  11. Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing class III patients. Eur J Orthod 2011 Apr;33(2):121-125.
  12. Three-dimensional assessment of maxillary changes associated with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011 Dec;140(6):790-798.
  13. Threedimensional assessment of mandibular and glenoid fossa changes after bone-anchored class III intermaxillary traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012 Jul;142(1):25-31.
  14. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013 Nov;144(5):705-714.
  15. Use of shape correspondence analysis to quantify skeletal changes associated with bone-anchored class III correction. Angle Orthod 2014 Mar;84(2):329-336.
  16. Effect of class III bone anchor treatment on airway. Angle Orthod 2015 Jul;85(4):591-596.
  17. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2010 Sep;80(5):799-806.
  18. Treatment of maxillary deficiency by miniscrew implants: a case report. J Orthod 2010 Mar;37(1):56-61.
  19. The effects of miniscrew with class III traction in growing patients with maxillary deficiency. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2011 Summer;22(2):25-30.
  20. Assessment of pain and discomfort during early orthodontic treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion using the Removable Mandibular Retractor Appliance. Eur J Padiatr Dent 2013 Jun;14(2):119-124.
  21. Radiographic cephalometry: From basics to videoimaging. Chicago (IL): Quintessence; 1995.
  22. An atlas of craniofacial growth: Cephalometric standards. Ann Arbor (MI): Center for Human Growth Development, University of Michigan; 1974.
  23. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York (NY): Interscience Publications; 1940.
  24. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983 May;83(5):382-390.
  25. Evaluation of the effects of early treatment of class III dental malocclusion with the Removable Mandibular Retractor. Damascus Univ J Med Sci 2009;120:211-220.
  26. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Sep;128(3):299-309.
  27. ; Stutzmann, J.; Lavergne, J. Mechanism of craniofacial growth and modus operandi of functional appliances: A cell-level and cybernetic approach to orthodontic decision making. In:Carlson, D., editor. Craniofacial growth theory and orthodontic treatment. Ann Arbor (MI): Center of Human Growth and Development University of Michigan; 1990. p. 13-73.
  28. Craniofacial changes induced by early functional treatment of class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996 Mar;109(3):310-318.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.