Expert consensus on early orthodontic treatment of class III malocclusion

Abstract

The prevalence of Class III malocclusion varies among different countries and regions. The populations from Southeast Asian countries (Chinese and Malaysian) showed the highest prevalence rate of 15.8%, which can seriously affect oral function, facial appearance, and mental health. As anterior crossbite tends to worsen with growth, early orthodontic treatment can harness growth potential to normalize maxillofacial development or reduce skeletal malformation severity, thereby reducing the difficulty and shortening the treatment cycle of later-stage treatment. This is beneficial for the physical and mental growth of children. Therefore, early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion is particularly important. Determining the optimal timing for early orthodontic treatment requires a comprehensive assessment of clinical manifestations, dental age, and skeletal age, and can lead to better results with less effort. Currently, standardized treatment guidelines for early orthodontic treatment of Class III malocclusion are lacking. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the etiology, clinical manifestations, classification, and early orthodontic techniques for Class III malocclusion, along with systematic discussions on selecting early treatment plans. The purpose of this expert consensus is to standardize clinical practices and improve the treatment outcomes of Class III malocclusion through early orthodontic treatment.

References

[1] AlhammadiMS, HalboubE, FayedMS, LabibA, El-SaaidiC. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dent. Press J. Orthod., 2018, 23: 40.e41-40.e10.

[2] JenaAK, DuggalR, MathurVP, ParkashH. Class-III malocclusion: genetics or environment? A twins study. J. Indian Soc. Pedodont. Prev. Dent., 2005, 23: 27-30.

[3] NganP, MoonW. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2015, 148: 22-36.

[4] EysenbachG. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J. Med. Internet Res., 2004, 6: e34.

[5] JüngerS, PayneSA, BrineJ, RadbruchL, BrearleySG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat. Med., 2017, 31: 684-706.

[6] FinkA, KosecoffJ, ChassinM, BrookRH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am. J. Public Health, 1984, 74: 979-983.

[7] FullerCW, et al. . Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Br. J. Sports Med., 2006, 40: 193-201.

[8] GriffinDR, et al. . The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br. J. Sports Med., 2016, 50: 1169-1176.

[9] HassonF, KeeneyS, McKennaH. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs., 2000, 32: 1008-1015.

[10] LittonSF, AckermannLV, IsaacsonRJ, ShapiroBL. A genetic study of Class 3 malocclusion. Am. J. Orthod., 1970, 58: 565-577.

[11] MarkovićM. Results of a genetic study of triplets with class III malocclusion. Zahn Mund. Kieferheilkd. Zentralbl, 1983, 71: 184-190

[12] MosseyPA. The heritability of malocclusion: Part 1-Genetics, principles and terminology. Br. J. Orthod., 1999, 26: 103-113.

[13] HarrisJE, KowalskiCJ, WatnickSS. Genetic factors in the shape of the craniofacial complex. Angle. Orthod., 1973, 43: 107-111

[14] NakasimaA, IchinoseM, NakataS, TakahamaY. Hereditary factors in the craniofacial morphology of Angle’s Class II and Class III malocclusions. Am. J. Orthod., 1982, 82: 150-156.

[15] MosseyPA. The heritability of malocclusion: part 2. The influence of genetics in malocclusion. Br. J. Orthod., 1999, 26: 195-203.

[16] RoizenNJ, PattersonD. Down’s syndrome. Lancet, 2003, 361: 1281-1289.

[17] BhattacharjeeK, et al. . Crouzon syndrome and the eye: an overview. Indian J. Ophthalmol., 2022, 70: 2346-2354.

[18] HarrisEF. Size and form of the cranial base in isolated cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J., 1993, 30: 170-174.

[19] CortésJ, GranicX. Characteristic craniofacial features in a group of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients in Chile. Rev. Stomatol. Chir. Maxillofac., 2006, 107: 347-353.

[20] FleseriuM, LangloisF, LimDST, VarlamovEV, MelmedS. Acromegaly: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet Diab. Endocrinol., 2022, 10: 804-826.

[21] CarpenterTO, et al. . Rickets. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim., 2017, 3. 17101

[22] ChungJC. Redirecting the growth pattern with rapid maxillary expander and chin cup treatment: changing breathing pattern from oral to nasal. World J. Orthod., 2006, 7: 236-253

[23] RakosiT, SchilliW. Class III anomalies: a coordinated approach to skeletal, dental, and soft tissue problems. J. Oral. Surg., 1981, 39: 860-870

[24] SugawaraY, IshiharaY, Takano-YamamotoT, YamashiroT, KamiokaH. Orthodontic treatment of a patient with unilateral orofacial muscle dysfunction: the efficacy of myofunctional therapy on the treatment outcome. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2016, 150: 167-180.

[25] Doraczynska-KowalikA, NelkeKH, PawlakW, SasiadekMM, GerberH. Genetic factors involved in mandibular prognathism. J. Craniofac. Surg., 2017, 28: e422-e431.

[26] Zohud, O. et al. Towards genetic dissection of skeletal class III malocclusion: a review of genetic variations underlying the phenotype in humans and future directions. J Clin. Med.12, 3212 (2023).

[27] HuhA, et al. . Epigenetic influence of KAT6B and HDAC4 in the development of skeletal malocclusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2013, 144: 568-576.

[28] StaudtCB, KiliaridisS. Different skeletal types underlying Class III malocclusion in a random population. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2009, 136: 715-721.

[29] EllisE3rd, McNamaraJAJr. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 1984, 42: 295-305.

[30] GuyerEC, EllisEE3rd, McNamaraJAJr., BehrentsRG. Jr Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg., 1984, 42: 295-305.

[31] JacobsonA, EvansWG, PrestonCB, SadowskyPL. Mandibular prognathism. Am. J. Orthod., 1974, 66: 140-171.

[32] WilliamsS, AndersenCE. The morphology of the potential Class III skeletal pattern in the growing child. Am. J. Orthod., 1986, 89: 302-311.

[33] AlshammariA, AlmotairyN, KumarA, GrigoriadisA. Effect of malocclusion on jaw motor function and chewing in children: a systematic review. Clin. Oral. Investig., 2022, 26: 2335-2351.

[34] InnocentiC, GiuntiniV, DefraiaE, BaccettiT. Glenoid fossa position in Class III malocclusion associated with mandibular protrusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2009, 135: 438-441.

[35] MehnertT. Investigations on the relation of dysgnathias and S-sound pronunciation. J. Oral. Rehabil., 1987, 14: 95-103.

[36] ParkJU, BaikSH. Classification of Angle Class III malocclusion and its treatment modalities. Int. J. Adult Orthodon. Orthognath. Surg., 2001, 16: 19-29

[37] KanasRJ, CarapezzaL, KanasSJ. Treatment classification of Class III malocclusion. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent., 2008, 33: 175-185.

[38] FoerschM, JacobsC, WriedtS, HechtnerM, WehrbeinH. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral. Investig., 2015, 19: 1181-1192.

[39] CordascoG, et al. . Efficacy of orthopedic treatment with protraction facemask on skeletal Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod. Craniofac. Res, 2014, 17: 133-143.

[40] NienkemperM, WilmesB, FranchiL, DrescherD. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination: a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod., 2015, 85: 764-770.

[41] WoonSC, ThiruvenkatachariB. Early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2017, 151: 28-52.

[42] OzkalayciN, CicekO. When do skeletal class III patients wear their reverse pull headgears?. BioMed. Res. Int., 2017, 2017. 3546262

[43] BaccettiT, McGillJS, FranchiL, McNamaraJAJr., TollaroI. Skeletal effects of early treatment of Class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion and face-mask therapy. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 1998, 113: 333-343.

[44] da Silva FilhoOG, MagroAC, Capelozza FilhoL. Early treatment of the Class III malocclusion with rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 1998, 113: 196-203.

[45] MainoG, et al. . Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of hybrid rapid palatal expansion and facemask treatment in growing skeletal Class III patients. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2018, 153: 262-268.

[46] TanneK, MatsubaraS, SakudaM. Location of the centre of resistance for the nasomaxillary complex studied in a three-dimensional finite element model. Br. J. Orthod., 1995, 22: 227-232.

[47] YamamotoH, SawakiY, OhkuboH, UedaM. Maxillary advancement by distraction osteogenesis using osseointegrated implants. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg., 1997, 25: 186-191.

[48] LiangSR, WangF, ZhouDQ, ChangS, BaiYX. Three-dimensional printed miniplate used for maxillary protraction]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2017, 52: 753-755

[49] WangF, ChangQ, LiangS, BaiY. Three-dimensional finite element analysis on the effects of maxillary protraction with an individual titanium plate at multiple directions and locations. Korean J. Orthod., 2024, 54: 108-116.

[50] CosciaG, AddabboF, PelusoV, D’AmbrosioE. Use of intermaxillary forces in early treatment of maxillary deficient class III patients: results of a case series. J. Craniomaxillofac Surg., 2012, 40: e350-354.

[51] TripathiT, KalraS, RaiP. Management of skeletal Class III with facial asymmetry using skeletal anchorage: 4-year follow-up. Dent. Press J. Orthod., 2020, 25: 24.

[52] FakharianM, BardidehE, AbtahiM. Skeletal Class III malocclusion treatment using mandibular and maxillary skeletal anchorage and intermaxillary elastics: a case report. Dent. Press J. Orthod., 2019, 24: 52-59.

[53] KircelliBH, PektasZO. Midfacial protraction with skeletally anchored face mask therapy: a novel approach and preliminary results. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2008, 133: 440-449.

[54] De ClerckHJ, ProffitWR. Growth modification of the face: a current perspective with emphasis on Class III treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2015, 148: 37-46.

[55] HeymannGC, CevidanesL, CornelisM, De ClerckHJ, TullochJF. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2010, 137: 274-284.

[56] MirandaF, et al. . Dentoskeletal comparison of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction with hybrid and conventional hyrax expanders: a randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2021, 160: 774-783.

[57] Dung, N. Studying in orthodontal treatments at mixed dentition stage using 2X4 fixed appliances. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam515, https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v515i1.2418 (2022).

[58] Jeet, V., Dhillon, H. S. & Bhatia, S. Proc.Fifth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies. 559–563.

[59] LinJ. Development of transmission straight-wire appliance and its clinical preliminary application. Chin. J. Orthod., 2011, 18: 61-67

[60] ThorstensonGA, KusyRP. Effects of ligation type and method on the resistance to sliding ofnovel orthodontic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod, 2003, 73: 418-430

[61] WiechmannD. Lingual orthodontics (part 1): laboratory procedure. J. Orofac. Orthop., 1999, 60: 371-379.

[62] GeorgeRD, HiraniS. Fully-customized lingual appliances: how lingual orthodontics became a viable treatment option. J. Orthod., 2013, 40: S8-S13.

[63] JamilianA, CannavaleR, PiancinoMG, EslamiS, PerilloL. Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: overview of systematic reviews. J. Orthod., 2016, 43: 102-120.

[64] SeiryuM, et al. . 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., 2020, 90: 3-12.

[65] de SouzaRA, Rino NetoJ, de PaivaJB. Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial. Prog. Orthod., 2019, 20. 35

[66] GaleottiA, et al. . Cephalometric effects of Pushing Splints 3 compared with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy in Class III malocclusion children: a randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Orthod., 2021, 43: 274-282.

[67] ProffitWR. The timing of early treatment: an overview. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2006, 129: S47-S49.

[68] FletcherF. Pediatric dentistry: infancy through adolescence, 5th edition. Br. Dent. J., 2013, 214: 602-602.

[69] RabieAB, GuY. Diagnostic criteria for pseudo-Class III malocclusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 2000, 117: 1-9.

[70] GuY. The characteristics of pseudo Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2002, 37: 377-380

[71] Sunil, M. M., Abdu, Z., Mepparambath, R. & Anjana, G. Early orthodontic interception of anterior crossbitein mixed dentition. J. Int. Oral Health9, 88–90 (2017).

[72] BorrieF, BearnD. Early correction of anterior crossbites: a systematic review. J. Orthod., 2011, 38: 175-184.

[73] NganPW, WeiSH, YenPK. Orthodontic treatment of the primary dentition. J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 1988, 116: 336-340.

[74] BaumrindS, MolthenR, WestEE, MillerDM. Mandibular plane changes during maxillary retraction. Am. J. Orthod., 1978, 74: 32-40.

[75] Lin JX, a. W. R. L. Modern Orthodontics: The Unity of Health Science, Art, and Orthodontics. 5th ed. (Beijing University Medical Press, 2021).

[76] Valladares-Neto, J., Santos, C. B. D., Arruda, B. S. & Gonçalves, I. M. F.

[77] LyuL, LinH, HuangH. The effect of combined maxillary pad movable appliance and FR-III functional appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion of deciduous teeth. BMC Oral. Health, 2022, 22. 485

[78] Wiedel, A. P. Fixed or removable appliance for early orthodontic treatment of functional anterior crossbite. Swed. Dent. J. Suppl., 10–72 (2015).

[79] SarangalH, NamdevR, GargS, SainiN, SinghalP. Treatment modalities for early management of class III skeletal malocclusion: a case series. Contemp. Clin. Dent., 2020, 11: 91-96.

[80] SunilMM, ZareenaMA, RatheeshMS, AnjanaG. Early orthodontic interception of anterior crossbite in mixed dentition. J. Int. Oral. Health, 2017, 9: 88-90.

[81] ManloveAE, RomeoG, VenugopalanSR. Craniofacial growth: current theories and influence on management. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am., 2020, 32: 167-175.

[82] VoraS. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques, 6th ed. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2018, 153: 161.

[83] WilliamsMD, SarverDM, SadowskyPL, BradleyE. Combined rapid maxillary expansion and protraction facemask in the treatment of Class III malocclusions in growing children: a prospective long-term study. Semin. Orthod., 1997, 3: 265-274.

[84] NganPW, HaggU, YiuC, WeiSH. Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin. Orthod., 1997, 3: 255-264.

[85] Nartallo-TurleyPE, TurleyPK. Cephalometric effects of combined palatal expansion and facemask therapy on Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod, 1998, 68: 217-224

[86] Pangrazio-KulbershV, BergerJ, KerstenG. Effects of protraction mechanics on the midface. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 1998, 114: 484-491.

[87] GallagherRW, MirandaF, BuschangPH. Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 1998, 113: 612-619.

[88] KapustAJ, SinclairPM, TurleyPK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 1998, 113: 204-212.

[89] BaccettiT, FranchiL, McNamaraJAJr. Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2000, 118: 404-413.

[90] SaadiaM, TorresE. Sagittal changes after maxillary protraction with expansion in class III patients in the primary, mixed, and late mixed dentitions: a longitudinal retrospective study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2000, 117: 669-680.

[91] WestwoodPV, McNamaraJAJr, BaccettiT, FranchiL, SarverDM. Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthoped., 2003, 123: 306-320.

[92] ChaKS. Skeletal changes of maxillary protraction in patients exhibiting skeletal class IIImalocclusion: a comparison of three skeletal maturation groups. Angle Orthod, 2003, 73: 26-35

[93] Franchi, L., Baccetti, T. & McNamara, J. A. Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion andprotraction therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop.126, 555–568 (2004).

[94] EscobarLF, BixlerD, SadoveM, BullMJ. Antley-Bixler syndrome from a prognostic perspective: report of a case and review of the literature. Am. J. Med. Genet., 1988, 29: 829-836.

[95] PosnickJC, RuizRL, TiwanaPS. Craniofacial dysostosis syndromes: stages of reconstruction. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. North Am., 2004, 16: 475-491.

[96] KatzenJT, McCarthyJG. Syndromes involving craniosynostosis and midface hypoplasia. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am., 2000, 33: 1257-1284.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)