Evaluation of the Treatment Effects of Tooth Borne Versus Bone-anchored Protraction Procedures in Class III Patients With Maxillary Deficiency

April 27, 2021 updated by: Burçin Akan, Izmir Katip Celebi University
The aim of this prospective randomized controlled clinical study is to compare the effects of bone-anchored and tooth borne maxillary protraction on dentofacial structures in skeletal Class III patients.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Today, the treatment of class III malocclusion is becoming more important due to the increased awareness of people about their appearance and the impact of appearance on the psychosocial state.

Various studies have shown that 40% of class III malocclusions are clinically caused by maxillary deficiency, 42% by mandibular excess, and 18% by a combination of maxillary deficiency and mandibular excess.

The face mask is the most effective treatment modality for class III malocclusions caused by a maxillary deficiency. The rationale for using a face mask is to apply heavy forces to the midface to advance the maxilla forward. These forces cause disarticulation by initiating resorption and apposition in the sutural articulations. However, undesirable dental effects arise from the use of tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) during these treatments. These include loss of anchorage and incisor proclination during the mesialization of the maxillary dentition, extrusion of the upper molars and posterior mandibular rotation, and insufficient anterior displacement of the maxilla (1-3 mm).

Studies have shown that increasing the skeletal effects can reduce post-treatment relapse, one of the most important problems in orthodontics.

To increase the amount of maxillary skeletal advancement and to minimize the side effects of tooth-borne maxillary expansion and protraction, a new bone-anchored hybrid hyrax appliance has been proposed. Hybrid hyrax treatment has the following advantages over tooth-borne mechanics:

  • Since the force is applied close to the center of resistance of the maxilla, counterclockwise rotation of the maxilla and related posterior mandibular rotation are not observed.
  • Transversal forces are applied to premolars or deciduous molars and mini implants without the risk of periodontal damage, fenestration, and dehiscence that may occur with tooth-borne appliances are avoided.
  • Mesial migration of the dentition, proclination of the upper incisors, and occupation of the necessary place for the canines to erupt are avoided.
  • Treatment is minimally invasive.
  • Upper and lower arches remain completely accessible for orthodontic interventions.
  • Only skeletal maxillary advancement is achieved. In our study, additionally, the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction (AltRamec) protocol, which increases the skeletal effects during maxillary protraction by providing more effective disarticulation of circummaxillary sutures than conventional rapid maxillary expansion was used.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

42

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Çiğli
      • İzmir, Çiğli, Turkey, 35640
        • Recruiting
        • Izmir Katip Celebi University,Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics
        • Contact:
          • Burcin Akan, Phd

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

10 years to 13 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Late mixed or early permanent dentition
  • C3 or C4 period according to the cervical vertebral maturation method
  • Presence of skeletal class III malocclusion (ANB <0 °).
  • Retrusive nasomaxillary complex (Nperp-A <1 mm).
  • Presence of dental class III malocclusion
  • Normal or horizontal growth pattern (SNGoGn <40 °).
  • Negative overjet (overjet <0)
  • Good cooperation
  • Absence of any systemic disease
  • Periodontal health
  • No previous orthodontic treatment
  • No craniofacial deformity
  • No neuromuscular deformity
  • The absence of a congenital anomaly

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Poor cooperation
  • Early mixed dentition
  • Individuals who have passed the C4 period
  • Craniofacial deformity
  • Congenital anomaly
  • A history of facial trauma Syndromes such as cleft lip and palate

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Bone-anchored maxillary protraction group
Face mask with hybrid-hyrax
Face mask with hybrid-hyrax
Experimental: Tooth-borne maxillary protraction group
Face mask with conventional bonded RME
Face mask with conventional bonded RME
No Intervention: Control group
Control group consisting of 14 non-treated Class III malocclusion subjects

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pre-treatment (T0) cephalometric analysis measures
Time Frame: 0 month
A cephalometric analysis of skeletal maxillary (SNA) and mandibular (SNB) positions
0 month
Pre-treatment (T0) soft tissues measurements
Time Frame: 0 month
Maxillary and mandibular (Soft tissue convexity angle) soft tissue analysis using 3D stereophotogrammetry
0 month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Post-treatment (T1) cephalometric analysis measurements
Time Frame: An average of 6 month
Evaluation of pos-treatment cephalometric changes of skeletal maxillary (SNA) and mandibular (SNB) positions
An average of 6 month
Post-treatment (T1) soft tissues measurements
Time Frame: An average of 6 month
Evaluation of maxillary and mandibular soft tissue changes (Soft tissue convexity angle) using 3D stereophotogrammetry
An average of 6 month

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Director: Burcin AKAN, Phd, Academician

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 15, 2020

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

May 20, 2021

Study Completion (Anticipated)

October 20, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 21, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 27, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

April 28, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 28, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 27, 2021

Last Verified

April 1, 2021

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Class III Malocclusion

Clinical Trials on Face mask with hybrid-hyrax

Subscribe