Comparative analysis of rapid expansion combined with maxillary protraction therapy in patients at different growth phases: A retrospective study

Yang,Xiaowen; Chen,Yanan; Miao,Chuqin; Zheng,Weiying

doi:10.3892/etm.2025.12855

Comparative analysis of rapid expansion combined with maxillary protraction therapy in patients at different growth phases: A retrospective study

Authors:
- Xiaowen Yang
- Yanan Chen
- Chuqin Miao
- Weiying Zheng
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Stomatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang 314000, P.R. China
Published online on: March 27, 2025 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2025.12855
Article Number: 105
Copyright: © Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The best timing for treating adolescent patients with skeletal class III malocclusion is still unclear. The present study aimed to explore variations in the efficacy of rapid expansion combined with maxillary protraction therapy in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion at different growth and development stages. Clinical records of 45 patients with skeletal class III malocclusion who underwent rapid expansion combined with maxillary protraction therapy from January 2019 to June 2022 were included in the present study. Based on the cervical vertebral maturation method (CVM), the patients were retrospectively divided into three groups: Pre‑pubertal (CVM stages I‑II, n=15), pubertal (CVM stage III, n=15) and post‑pubertal (CVM stages IV‑VI, n=15). Lateral head radiographs before and after the treatment and various bone, dental and soft tissue measurements were compared between groups to assess the differences in treatment effects. The results of the intra‑group comparison before and after the treatment showed that the dental and bone indicators, such as A Point‑Nasion‑Point B angle, sella‑nasion‑A point angle, sella‑nasion‑B point angle, mandibular plane angle, A Point‑VR plane and anterior Nasal‑VR plane (ANS‑VR) were significantly different compared with those before treatment in all three groups of patients (P<0.05). The posterior Nasal‑VR plane (PNS‑VR) changed significantly in the pre‑pubertal and pubertal groups (P<0.05), but there was no significant change in the post‑pubertal group. The Glabella‑Pronasale‑Pogonion of soft tissue and Sella‑Nasion‑Nasion‑Bs Point angle decreased significantly post‑treatment in the three groups, while the Sella‑Nasion‑Nasion‑Sn Point angle increased (P<0.05). Intergroup comparisons before and after treatment showed that there was no significant difference in the post‑treatment indexes between the pre‑pubertal and pubertal groups. The changes in ANS‑VR and PNS‑VR values before and after treatment were statistically significant between the post‑pubertal and the other two groups (P<0.05). In conclusion, rapid expansion combined with maxillary protraction therapy has the best treatment effects in patients in the pre‑pubertal and pubertal stages and is associated with significant skeletal effects and less alveolar response. Although the skeletal treatment effects are less favorable in patients in the post‑pubertal stage with more pronounced alveolar responses, the treatment can still provide appropriate compensation for facial deformities and reduce the likelihood of orthognathic surgery.

View Figures

View References

1	Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K and Tiwari N: Developing class III malocclusions: Challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 10:99–116. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Mehdipour A, Khosroshahian S, Pourhossein H, Mohammadbeigi A and Karimi A: Prevalence and association of temporomandibular disorders with malocclusion and anxiety in children and adolescents: A cross-sectional observational study. Gen Dent. 70:65–71. 2022.PubMed/NCBI
3	Shroff B: Malocclusion as a cause for temporomandibular disorders and orthodontics as a treatment. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 30:299–302. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Yoon SY, Song JM, Kim YD, Chung IK and Shin SH: Pusan Korea Pusan National University. Clinical changes of TMD and condyle stability after two jaw surgery with and without preceding TMD treatments in class III patients. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 37(9)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Duarte V, Zaror C, Villanueva J, Werlinger F, Vidal C, Solé P, O Ryan JA, Requena R, Dallaserra M, Rojas R, et al: Changes in health-related quality of life after orthognathic surgery: A multicenter study. Clin Oral Investig. 26:3467–3476. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Bernabé E, Sheiham A and de Oliveira CM: Condition-specific impacts on quality of life attributed to malocclusion by adolescents with normal occlusion and class I, II and III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 78:977–982. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Dogan E and Seckin O: Maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: Evaluation of soft and hard tissues using the Alt-RAMEC protocol. J Orofac Orthop. 81:209–219. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Fu L, Yu J and Lv H: The clinical effect of anterior distraction combined with arch expansion in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion in mixed dentition aged 8 to 11 years old. Chin Mod Med. 29:120–123+127. 2022.(In Chinese).
9	Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, Sasaki S, Sasaki S, Deguchi T and Takano-Yamamoto T: A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: A single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 90:3–12. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Büyükçavuş MH: Alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocol: A comprehensive literature review. Turk J Orthod. 32:47–51. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Sung SJ and Baik HS: Assessment of skeletal and dental changes by maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 114:492–502. 1998.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Manzoor Mughal A, Hassan N and Ahmed A: Bone age assessment methods: A critical review. Pak J Med Sci. 30:211–215. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Cavallo F, Mohn A, Chiarelli F and Giannini C: Evaluation of bone age in children: A mini-review. Front Pediatr. 9(580314)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Kumar V, Patil K and Munoli KB: Comparative evaluation of dental age, bone age, and chronological age in the human immunodeficiency virus positive children. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 6 (Suppl 1):S90–S96. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Mays S: The effect of factors other than age upon skeletal age indicators in the adult. Ann Hum Biol. 42:332–341. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Carel JC, Lahlou N, Roger M and Chaussain JL: Precocious puberty and statural growth. Hum Reprod Update. 10:135–147. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Wit JM: Should skeletal maturation be manipulated for extra height gain? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 12(812196)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Arisaka O, Nakayama Y, Tokita A and Yabuta K: Bone mineralization and bone maturation in precocious puberty. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 151:101–102. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Jang HI, Kim SC, Chae JM, Kang KH, Cho JW, Chang NY, Lee KY and Cho JH: Relationship between maturation indices and morphology of the midpalatal suture obtained using cone-beam computed tomography images. Korean J Orthod. 46:345–355. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Szemraj A, Wojtaszek-Słomińska A and Racka-Pilszak B: Is the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method effective enough to replace the hand-wrist maturation (HWM) method in determining skeletal maturation?-A systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 102:125–128. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Zhang X, He JM and Zheng WY: Comparison of rapid maxillary expansion and pre-fabricated myofunctional appliance for the management of mouth breathers with class II malocclusion. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 25:16–23. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	McNamara JA Jr: A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod. 86:449–469. 1984.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Jarabak JR and Fizzel JA: Technique and treatment with light wire edgewise appliances. 2nd edition. St. Louis: Mosby, 1972.
24	Baccetti T, Franchi L and McNamara JA Jr: The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod. 11:119–129. 2005.
25	Tarraf NE, Dalci O, Dalci K, Altug AT and Darendeliler MA: A retrospective comparison of two protocols for correction of skeletal class III malocclusion in prepubertal children: Hybrid hyrax expander with mandibular miniplates and rapid maxillary expansion with face mask. Prog Orthod. 24(3)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Miner RM, Al Qabandi S, Rigali PH and Will LA: Cone-beam computed tomography transverse analyses. Part 2: Measures of performance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 148:253–263. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Wen X, Yang C and Qian Y: Evaluation of the effect of maxillary protraction in patients with maxillary hypoplasia at different stages. Chin J Pract Stomatol. 15:551–557. 2022.(In Chinese).
28	Kircelli BH and Pektas ZO: Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: A novel approach and preliminary results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 133:440–449. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Lee SH, Koh SD, Chung DH, Lee JW and Lee SM: Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 42:193–199. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Li J, Qi Y, Zhang X, Liu D, Li J and Zhang L: Maxillary protraction and rapid palatal expansion on the facial soft tissue changes for class III skeletal malocclusion patients-CNKI. Clin Res. 02:38–41. 2023.(In Chinese).
31	Li C, Cai Y, Chen S and Chen F: Classification and characterization of class III malocclusion in Chinese individuals. Head Face Med. 12(31)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Doraczynska-Kowalik A, Nelke KH, Pawlak W, Sasiadek MM and Gerber H: Genetic factors involved in mandibular prognathism. J Craniofac Surg. 28:e422–e431. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D and Zhou S: Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs. expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 148:641–651. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Baccetti T, Franchi L and McNamara JA: Growth in the untreated class III subject. Semin Orthod. 13:130–142. 2007.
35	De Clerck H, Cevidanes L and Baccetti T: . Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 138:577–81. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
36	Baccetti T, De Clerck HJ, Cevidanes LH and Franchi L: Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing class III patients. Eur J Orthod. 33:121–125. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
37	Bai L, Bao H, Xie N, Ge Y and Zhu X: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effects of three types of rapid maxillary expansion combined with protraction. Chin J Stomatol. 41:32–37. 2021.(In Chinese).
38	Cha KS: Skeletal changes of maxillary protraction in patients exhibiting skeletal class III malocclusion: A comparison of three skeletal maturation groups. Angle Orthod. 73:26–35. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
39	Li X: The effect of protraction for skeletal class III malocclusion at various time: A meta-analysis, 2021.
40	Chen YN, Yang XW and Zheng WY: Comparison of patients with different cervical spine bone ages before and after arch expansion treatment based on cone-beam computed tomography. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 27:1269–1277. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
41	Masucci C, Franchi L, Franceschi D, Pierleoni F and Giuntini V: Post-pubertal effects of the Alt-RAMEC/FM and RME/FM protocols for the early treatment of class III malocclusion: A retrospective controlled study. Eur J Orthod. 44:303–310. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
42	Moshkelgosha V, Raoof A, Sardarian A and Salehi P: Photogrammetric comparison of facial soft tissue profile before and after protraction facemask therapy in class III children (6-11 years old). J Dent (Shiraz). 18:7–16. 2017.PubMed/NCBI
43	Pavoni C, Gazzani F, Franchi L, Loberto S, Lione R and Cozza P: Soft tissue facial profile in class III malocclusion: Long-term post-pubertal effects produced by the face mask protocol. Eur J Orthod. 41:531–536. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
44	Çelebi F and Çelikdelen M: Comparison of the Changes following two treatment approaches: Rapid Maxillary expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction. Turk J Orthod. 33:1–7. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar