Treatment outcomes of various force applications in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion: A comparative lateral cephalometric study

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes between intraoral light force application and extraoral heavy force application in growing patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric data from 50 subjects with skeletal Class III malocclusion. In the first group (15 boys, 10 girls; 8.67 6 2.13 years old), each subject wore a biocreative horseshoe appliance (CHS) with two Class III elastics that exerted a force of 200 g. In the second group (13 boys, 12 girls; 8.96 6 1.82 years old), each subject wore a Petit-type facemask and a lingual arch with hooks fixed to the maxillary arch with a total force of 700 g. Both groups of patients were instructed to wear the appliance approximately 14 hours a day, and 22 linear measurements and 8 angular measurements were evaluated. Changes of measurements from each group were compared by paired t-tests, considering a 5% significance level. Results: Forward growth of the maxilla, improvement of the maxilla–mandible relationship, and upper incisor flaring were achieved in both groups without any statistically significant difference between them. Lateral cephalometric analysis also showed that U1 exposure, IMPA (Angle between mandibular plane and mandibular incisor axis), FMIA (Angle between FH plan and mandibular incisor axis), and L1-APog (Angle formed by the intersection of tooth axis of lower incisor and A-Pog line, Distance from lower incisor edge to A-Pog line) showed statistically significant differences. Lower incisors were inclined lingually in the CHS group. Conclusions: During treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion, the CHS with light Class III intermaxillary elastics therapy exhibits similar orthopedic changes to the maxillary complex and more dental changes to the lower anterior teeth compared with facemask therapy. (Angle Orthod. 2021;91:449–458).