This case report describes the orthodontic treatment of a 32-year-old woman with a Class III malocclusion, whose chief compliant was her dentofacial esthetics. The pretreatment lateral cephalometric tracings showed the presence of a Class III dentoskeletal malocclusion with components of maxillary deficiency. After discussion with the patient, the treatment option included surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) followed by orthopedic protraction (Sky Hook) and Class III elastics. Patient compliance was excellent and satisfactory dentofacial esthetics was achieved after treatment completion.
This case report describes the orthodontic treatment of a 32-year-old woman with a Class III malocclusion, whose chief compliant was her dentofacial esthetics. The pretreatment lateral cephalometric tracings showed the presence of a Class III dentoskeletal malocclusion with components of maxillary deficiency. After discussion with the patient, the treatment option included surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) followed by orthopedic protraction (Sky Hook) and Class III elastics. Patient compliance was excellent and satisfactory dentofacial esthetics was achieved after treatment completion.
Potpeschnigg[16] (1875) first described
the protraction facemask in 1875 and Delaire, et al.[4] (1976) revived the interest in maxillary protraction 100 years
later. Protraction facemask in conjunction with a maxillary expansion appliance has been
used to correct malocclusions associated with maxillary deficiency and/or mandibular
prognathism, disarticulating maxillary sutures and allowing an efficient forward
protraction of the maxilla[11-14,19].More recently, Daher, et al.[3] (2007)
used the facemask therapy in a non-surgical treatment of an adult patient, to provide
dentoalveolar compensation. The use of extraoral traction with a Delaire-type facemask
in combination with a maxillary corticotomy following the design of a Le Fort I
osteotomy has been proposed in adolescents[15] and adults[2].
Resistance to maxillary protraction by the craniofacial skeletal architecture could be
reduced by using osteotomic cuts which allow true progress in orthopedic advancement
with almost exclusively skeletal effects and a reduction of the risk of relapse.This paper presents the case of an adult patient with Class III malocclusion who was
reluctant to undergo orthognatic surgery, as was treated with surgically assisted rapid
maxillary expansion (SARME) followed by maxillary orthopedic protraction. The SARMe was
undertaken in a private dental practice under local anesthesia.
CASE REPORT
A 32-year-old woman presented for orthodontic treatment at Dr. Laurindo Zanco Furquim's
private practice. Her chief complaint was her facial esthetics. Clinical examination
confirmed a concave profile, retruded upper lip and procumbent lower lip. The patient
had a complete dentition up to the second molars, with a bilateral Class III dental
relationship. Intraoral and the dental cast examinations revealed an absolute transverse
deficiency of the maxilla. The compensatory tipping of the maxillary and mandibular
incisors resulted in normal incisor relationship despite the deficient sagittal jaw
relationship (Figures 1 and 2). The pretreatment lateral cephalometric tracings showed the
presence of a Class III dentoskeletal malocclusion with components of maxillary
deficiency (Table 1).
Figure 1
Pretreatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)
Figure 2
Pretreatment study models
Table 1
Pretreatment, posttreatment and follow-up cephalometric values
Measurement
Pretreatment
Posttreatment
Follow up
Maxillary component
SNA
77.2°
78.7°
78.7
A-Nperp
-6.6 mm
-5.1 mm
-5.2 mm
Co-A
79.5 mm
81.1 mm
81 mm
Mandibular component
SNB
81.8°
81.1°
81.2
P-Nperp
-1.3 mm
1.2 mm
-1 mm
P-NB
2.9 mm
4.3 mm
4.2 mm
Co-Gn
117.1 mm
116.8 mm
116.6 mm
Maxillomandibular component
ANB
-4.7°
-2.4°
-2.6
Profile convexity
NA-NPo
-12.1°
-9.2°
-9.5
Vertical component
FMA (MP-FH)
27.6°
26.9°
28.6
SN-OP
6.7°
8°
8.3
ANS-Me
65.2 mm
64.1 mm
64.4
Maxillary dentoalveolar component
U1.NA
43.3°
39.1°
37.9
U1-NA
11.9 mm
10.3 mm
10.5
Mandibular dentoalveolar component
L1.NB
19.6°
25.4°
25.1°
L1-NB
3.5 mm
4.4 mm
5.1 mm
IMPA
84.2°
90.5°
89.2°
Interdental
Overjet
0 mm
0 mm
0 mm
Overbite
0 mm
3 mm
2 mm
Interincisal angle
120.1°
117.9°
119.5°
Molar relationship
Class III subd. Right
Class I
Class I
Soft tissue
UL to E-Plane
-8.7 mm
-7.5 mm
-7.2
Mentolabial sulcus
136°
132°
133°
Nasolabial angle
94°
99°
99°
Pretreatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)Pretreatment study modelsPretreatment, posttreatment and follow-up cephalometric valuesOverall treatment goals consisted of correcting the compensatory tipping of the
mandibular incisors and the A-P basal relationship by advancing the maxilla. These
changes were expected to greatly improve the patient’s facial esthetics. Limited
treatment objectives were to correct the occlusal discrepancies by means of
dentoalveolar compensation, which would produce some facial improvement.Based on the objectives, 3 treatment options were proposed. A compromised treatment by
means of dentoalveolar compensation was the first considered option. Secondly, to attain
the overall objectives, combined surgical and orthodontic treatment with maxillary
expansion and advancement was proposed. However, the risks and treatment expenses would
be high. The third option consisted of surgically assisted maxillary expansion followed
by orthopedic protraction and A-P discrepancy correction by means of maxillary and
mandibular dentoalveolar compensation. Although the risks and costs of this option were
lower than the other options, it demanded more time and high patient compliance.The patient chose the third option because she thought that the possible esthetic
improvement with surgery was not worth the high cost and risk. She was reluctant to
undergo extensive surgical procedures and was willing to accept a less-thanideal result.
Therefore, orthodontic treatment with maxillary expansion followed by orthopedic
protraction with Sky Hook appliance was performed to correct the inadequate occlusal
relationship and to improve her facial esthetics.The technique used for maxillary expansion is a variation of that proposed by Bays and
Greco[1] (1992), under local
anesthesia. The surgical technique consists of a maxillary lateral wall osteotomy
extended posteriorly to the tuber avoiding the pterygomaxillary fissure. The Hyrax
appliance was cemented to the first premolars and first molars on each side a few days
before surgery. The expander must have an extension to the second premolars and canines,
and hooks for the protraction. Five days after surgery, the Hyrax was activated two
quarters twice a day (1 mm per day) for eleven days. The Sky Hook
headgear was used for maxillary protraction according to Haas protocol[5].Straight-wire Capelozza prescription Class III brackets were applied (lingual crown
torque on the mandibular anterior teeth of -6°; and mandibular canine slots angulated
0°). Leveling and alignment of the mandibular arch began with rectangular 0.016 X
0.022-inch heat-activated NiTi archwire, simultaneously with maxillary expansion, which
allowed the use of Class III elastics, full time, except during meals. The Sky Hook was
used at night, simultaneously with Class III elastics (Figure 4). The point of force application was the upper premolars for the Sky
Hook elastics and the molars for the Class III elastics. The Sky Hook force vector was
parallel to the oclusal plane, and the magnitude was 400-500 g.
Figure 4
Treatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)
Treatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)Maxillary protraction was performed during 4 month. The use of Class III elastics
continued up to placement of a 0.019 X 0.025-inch stainless-steel archwire in the
maxillary and mandibular arches, respectively. Patient compliance in using the elastics
was excellent. After a good occlusal relationship was attained, with canine and molar
Class I relationship, detailing and finishing were undertaken. Total treatment time was
33 months. On the day of debonding, a maxillary Hawley retainer was delivered, and a
mandibular canine-to-canine retainer was bonded (Figure
5). She wore the Hawley retainer continuously for the first year, and only at
night the next year. The lingual retainers will be kept permanently to enhance long-term
stability. At the end of treatment and at 2 years and 9 months following the treatment,
lateral cephalograms were traced, and changes were evaluated by superimposition of the
new tracings on the pre-treatment tracings (Figures
7, 8 and 12).
Figure 5
Posttreatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)
Figure 7
Superposition of initial and final tracings on SN at S
Figure 8
Superposition of initial and final tracings on ANS - PNS at ANS
Figure 12
Superposition of final and follow-up tracings on SN at S
Posttreatment facial and intraoral photographs (patient signed informed consent
authorizing the publication of these pictures)Superposition of initial and final tracings on SN at SSuperposition of initial and final tracings on ANS - PNS at ANSSuperposition of final and follow-up tracings on SN at SThere was improvement in the relationship between the upper and lower lips, and in the
nasolabial angle, associated with projection of the middle third of the face (Figure 5). Posttreatment intraoral photographs and
dental casts show satisfactory dental alignment, anteroposterior relationship, normal
overjet, overbite, and transverse relationship (Figures
5 and 6). The patient was satisfied with
her teeth and profile. Good intercuspation and interproximal contacts were achieved
(Figures 5 to 6). The final cephalometric tracing and superimposition show that the
maxillary incisors were slightly retruded and palatally tipped, the maxillary molars
were mesially displaced, and the mandibular molars were distally tipped. The mandibular
incisors were bucally tipped (Figures 7 and 8 and Table
1).
Figure 6
Posttreatment study models
Posttreatment study modelsThe follow-up results, 2 years and 9 months after the end of treatment, are shown in
Figures 9-12. Facial esthetics improvement in the frontal and lateral view was
maintained in the retention period. The posttreatment occlusal stability is good, with
no apparent changes in the follow up. Posttreatment and follow-up superimposed tracings
demonstrate slight dental and skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible. Minimum
anteroposterior changes of incisor position and maxillary protraction relapse can be
observed.
Figure 9
Follow-up facial and intraoral photographs (01/16/2008) (patient signed informed
consent authorizing the publication of these pictures)
Follow-up facial and intraoral photographs (01/16/2008) (patient signed informed
consent authorizing the publication of these pictures)
DISCUSSION
Class III malocclusion in an adult patient can be corrected without surgery, with
dentoalveolar compensation[3,6-8].
However, the surgical correction provides better esthetic results and normal jaw
relationship. SARMe followed by orthopedic protraction of the maxilla is an alternative
able to improve the anteroposterior jaw relationship consequent to some orthopedic
change.Both Pelo, et al.[15] (2007)and Carlini,
et al.[2] (2007) fractured the
pterygomaxillary suture, which explains the greater maxillary advancement compared to
our results. The SARME can be likewise performed either under general or local
anesthesia, with the same procedure and the same effectiveness, except for
pterygomaxillary detachment, which is absolutely unadvisable under local anesthesia, due
to the possible complications and to the enormous discomfort for the patient[18].However, the Piezosurgery® (Mectron Medical Technology, Carasco,
Italy) can be an alternative for patients reluctant to undergo general anesthesia but
would be beneficiated by pterygomaxillary suture separation. The
Piezosurgery® is selective for mineralized structures, with no
effect on soft tissues. In addition to that, the separation of the pterygoid plates from
the maxilla seems to be a reliable procedure if performed with the piezoelectric
osteotome, because the osteotomic action of ultrasounds is very effective with this bone
thickness[17].The proposed treatment approach was able to slightly protrude and retrude the maxilla
and the mandible, respectively (SNA, SNB), improving the anteroposterior jaw
relationship (ANB). However, some of these changes may have been consequent to the
maxillary incisors palatal tipping and labial tipping of the mandibular incisors. The
treatment was finished with a not perfect molar Class I relationship (Figures 5 and 6). However, considering the realistic targets of an adult treatment, the
oclusal achievements were considered satisfactory.The dentoalveolar changes usually expected in a camouflage treatment (Class III
compensation) can improve the soft tissue profile, with protrusion of the upper lip and
slight retrusion of the lower lip[9,10]. Nevertheless, the patient's excessive
Class III natural compensation jeopardized her appearance (Figure 1). In addition to the maxillary protrusion, the accentuated
labial inclination of the maxillary incisors was corrected. The maxillary protrusion
provided a satisfactory occlusal result, and the labial incisor inclination correction
provided satisfactory esthetic results, with increase in the nasolabial angle. even with
mandibular canine slots angulated 0° and mandibular incisors with lingual crown torque
(-6°), the mandibular incisors were labially tipped. This contributed to improve the
mento-labial sulcus (Figure 5). The upper and
lower incisors inclined in the opposite direction for what would be expected in the
Class III treatment. This result can be explained due to the excessive natural Class III
compensation at the beginning of treatment, which was reduced with the pre-adjusted
fixed appliance. In addition, the Sky Hook produced body movement of the incisors, which
did not increase labial tipping. The clinical and radiographic follow-up examination
performed 2 years and 9 months after the end of therapy confirms stability of facial
esthetics improvement, which was maintained due to the stable orthopedic and oclusal
outcomes (Figures 3, 9-12). Pelo, et al.[15] (2007)also observed stable results in a
5-year follow-up of two young patients treated with a Delaire-type facemask in
combination with maxillary corticotomy.
Figure 3
Pretreatment panoramic radiograph
Pretreatment panoramic radiographGood patient compliance was crucial for the good results achieved in the present case.
This protocol is discouraged in non-compliant patients, and even compliant patients must
be highly motivated.
CONCLUSION
The choice of treatment for any malocclusion must be tailored to each patient. All
treatment possibilities, including those that are ideal and those that are a compromise,
should be considered and explained to the patients, so that they can choose the best
possible option that offer good outcomes, while meeting their expectations and
respecting their desires. In view of patient reluctance to undergo general anesthesia,
SARME followed by orthopedic protraction of the maxilla can be a viable alternative in
similar cases. The patient’s chief concern was addressed and treated to her
satisfaction.
Authors: Guilherme Janson; José Eduardo Prado de Souza; Flávio de Andrade Alves; Pedro Andrade; Alexandre Nakamura; Marcos Roberto de Freitas; José Fernando Castanha Henriques Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: T M Präger; H G Brochhagen; R Mischkowski; P G Jost-Brinkmann; R Müller-Hartwich Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 1.938