Long-term effects produced by early treatment of Class III malocclusion with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask followed by fixed appliances: A multicentre retro-prospective controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the short- and long-term dentoskeletal effects of early Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask (RME/FM) followed by fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 44 patients (27 females, 17 males) treated consecutively with RME/FM were included from the archives of 3 centres. Three lateral cephalograms were available: T0 (before the start of RME/FM therapy, mean age 8.1 ± 1.8 years), T1 (immediately after RME/FM, mean age 9.8 ± 1.6 years), and T2 (long-term observation, mean age 19.5 ± 1.6 years). A control group of 17 untreated Class III subjects (12 females and 5 males) also was selected. Between-group statistical comparisons were performed with ANCOVA. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences for any of the cephalometric variables were found at T0. In the short term, the treated group showed significant improvements in ANB (+2.9°), Wits appraisal (+2.7 mm), SNA (+1.8°) and SNB (-1.1°). A significant closure of CoGoMe angle (-1.3°) associated with smaller increments along Co-Gn (-2.4 mm) also was found together with a significant increase in intermaxillary divergence (+1.3°). In the long-term, significant improvements in ANB (+2.6°), Wits appraisal (+2.7 mm) and SNB (-1.7°) were recorded together with a significant closure of the CoGoMe angle (-2.9°). No significant long-term changes in vertical skeletal relationships were found. CONCLUSIONS: RME/FM therapy was effective in improving Class III dentoskeletal relationships in the short term. These changes remained stable in the long-term due mainly to favourable mandibular changes.

Effects produced by the facemask with and without skeletal anchorage for the orthopaedic treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Skeletally anchored facemask has been proposed to maximize skeletal effects and minimize dental effects in the treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the dento-skeletal effects produced by the facemask with or without skeletal anchorage for the treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey were used for the electronic search without language, publication status, and year restrictions. Only RCTs were included. Inclusion criteria were: growing patients (age under 18 years) with Class III malocclusion, with indications for treatment with the facemask. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. GRADE statement was executed. The mean of differences (MD) and the risk ratio (RR) were used. RESULTS: Three articles with a total of 123 patients were included. One article was at low risk of bias while two were at high risk of bias. There were no significant differences between the two groups in ANB angle, Wits appraisal, SNB angle, and SN-MP angle. SNA angle was significantly increased in the skeletally anchored facemask (pooled MD = 0.80 favouring skeletal anchorage, 95% CI from 0.29 to 1.31, P = 0.002, I2 = 12 per cent, three studies, GRADE moderate). The U1-SN angle was significantly reduced in the skeletally anchored facemask (pooled MD = -5.91 favouring skeletal anchorage, 95% CI from -7.64 to -4.27, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0 per cent, two studies, GRADE moderate). There were significantly less complications in tooth-anchored facemask (pooled RR = 7.98 favouring dental anchorage, 95 per cent CI from 1.04 to 61.27, P = 0.05, I2 = 0 per cent, two studies, GRADE low). LIMITATIONS: Few RCTs (three) were included, and two studies were at high risk of bias. There were no long-term RCTs comparing skeletally anchored facemask with dental-anchored facemask. Only Asiatic patients were included in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Skeletally anchored facemask was associated to a greater increase of SNA angle at the end of treatment though clinically not significant. Facemask with skeletal anchorage determined a reduced inclination of maxillary incisors compared to dental-anchored facemask with greater risks of complications. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO register (CRD42020221982).

Dento-skeletal effects produced by rapid versus slow maxillary expansion using fixed jackscrew expanders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: No systematic review and meta-analysis of dento-skeletal effects following rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME) using the same jackscrew expander with different activation protocols is available. OBJECTIVE: To compare dento-skeletal effects produced by RME with those induced by SME using the same fixed jackscrew expanders in growing patients. SEARCH METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and OpenGrey were searched with no language or publication date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected and the following inclusion criteria were used: growing patients in mixed or permanent dentition, with maxillary transverse discrepancy, dental crowding, and treated with fixed jackscrew maxillary expander (e.g. Hyrax, Haas) activated to achieve either RME or SME. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). For the aggregation of continuous data, the mean of the differences (MD) between treatments was used. A random effect model was applied. RESULTS: From 4855 retrieved articles, 3 studies were selected, 1 at unclear risk and 2 at high risk of bias. Maxillary intermolar distance showed no significant differences between the two modalities of expansion [pooled MD = 0.99 mm favouring RME, with 95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.09 to 4.06, P = 0.53, I2 = 90%]. As for maxillary molar inclination measured as the angle formed by the axes passing through the disto-buccal cusps and the apexes of the palatine root of the first upper molars, it was significantly smaller in the SME group (MD = -11.51°, with 95% CI = -15.23 to -7.79, P < 0.0001). Posterior maxillary expansion was significantly greater in RME than SME (pooled MD = 0.75 mm, with 95% CI = 0.27-1.23, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Both RME and SME produce an effective dento-skeletal expansion of the maxilla. RME is slightly more effective in increasing the posterior transverse skeletal width of the maxilla while SME induces smaller molar inclination. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CDR42018105530.

A multilevel analysis of craniofacial growth in subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the craniofacial growth of a long-term semi-longitudinal sample of Caucasian subjects with untreated Class III malocclusion. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A total of 144 Caucasian subjects (of North American and Italian origin) with untreated Class III malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 2 years and 9 months up to 21 years and 7 months were selected. A multilevel model was used to calculate growth curves for ten variables for both each individual subject and for the whole sample. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase for total mandibular length (Co-Gn. T2-T1 = 8.4 mm), midfacial length (Co-A. T2-T1 = 3.4 mm) and lower anterior facial height (ANS-Me. T2-T1 = 3.8 mm). The multilevel analysis showed two points of acceleration of growth (about 3-5 years of age and 11-15 years of age) for seven out of ten variables. For Co-Gn and Co-A variables, males presented points of maximum growth delayed by 1 year in comparison with females, with a greater duration (1 year longer) and a greater total growth of about 5 mm. Active mandibular growth continued for a long time after the pubertal spurt: increases in mandibular length ended at about 17 years of age in females and at 21 years and 7 months in males. CONCLUSIONS: Untreated Class III malocclusion showed a specific growth curve, especially for the mandible, whose excesses added up over time. In males, the amounts of mandibular and midfacial growth during the whole observation time were greater and lasted longer than in females.

Long-Term Assessment of Treatment Timing for Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Facemask Therapy Followed by Fixed Appliances: A Multicenter Retro-Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: to determine the role of treatment timing in the long-term effects produced by rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy (RME/FM) in Class III patients. METHODS: This study compared two sample groups treated with RME/FM followed by fixed appliances: the early prepubertal group (EPG) (17 patients; mean age before treatment (T0), 5.8 ± 0.7 years; range, 4.3-6.9 years) and the late prepubertal group (LPG) (17 patients; mean age at T0, 10.1 ± 0.8 years; range, 9.0-11.1 years). Lateral cephalograms for the two groups were examined before treatment (T0) and at a long-term observation (T1) (EPG, 19.8 ± 1.0 years; LPG, 21.0 ± 2.1 years). Independent sample t-tests were performed to compare the two groups at T0 and T1. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found for any of the cephalometric variables at T0, except for the total mandibular length, overjet, and inclination of the maxillary incisors to the palatal plane, which were greater in the LPG. At T1, no statistically significant differences were detected for any of the cephalometric variables. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant long-term differences when treating Class III patients with RME/FM, either during an early prepubertal phase (≤7 years of age) or during a late prepubertal phase (≥9 years of age).

Comparison of rapid versus slow maxillary expansion on patient-reported outcome measures in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: No systematic review and meta-analysis are present in the literature comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rapid maxillary expansion (RME) versus slow maxillary expansion (SME) in growing patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to compare PROMs in RME versus SME in growing patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic search in PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey was conducted. Only RCTs were included. Inclusion criteria were: growing patients in the mixed dentition or early permanent dentition, mild-to-moderate maxillary transverse deficiency, dental crowding, treatment with fixed expanders for rapid and slow maxillary expansion. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. GRADE statement was performed. The mean of the differences (MD) and the risk ratio (RR) were used for the aggregation of data. A random effect model was applied. RESULTS: Two articles with a total of 157 patients were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. One article was at low risk of bias, while one was at risk of bias with some concerns. Pain presence was less, though not statistically significant, in SME patients (RR = 2.02, 95%CI from 0.55 to 7.49, P = 0.29, I2 = 95%, 2 studies, GRADE very low). Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME appliance in the first week of treatment (pooled MD = 0.86 favoring SME, 95%CI from 0.47 to 1.26, P < 0.0001, I2 = 6%, 2 studies, GRADE moderate). There were no significant differences between the two groups in difficulty in speaking, difficulty in swallowing, hypersalivation, difficulty in hygiene, and patient and parent satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME compared to RME during the first week of treatment. For the following weeks, there were no differences in pain between the two protocols.