Early treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion with facemask therapy in Vietnam

To evaluate the effects of facemask therapy on skeletal class III malocclusion in the Vietnamese population. This interventional trial enrolled a total of 31 children, dividing them into two age groups: Children aged 7 to 9 (54.8%), who were in the pre-pubescent or early mixed dentition stages, comprised one group. The other group consisted of 14 children, representing 45.2%, who were in the mid-pubescent or late mixed dentition stage, aged 7 to 9. All of them had skeletal class III maxillary deficiency (Angle formed by the A-nasion line and B-nasion line ≤0◦, Wits appraisal ≤2). The study aimed to investigate how age affects changes in lateral cephalometric measurements before and after treatment. The research involved clinical records, lateral cephalograms, and dental casts. Both qualitative and quantitative variables were evaluated using specific statistical tests. Fisher’s exact test was used for qualitative variables, while paired samples t-tests and independent samples t-tests were used for quantitative variables. In cases where the data did not follow a normal distribution, the Wilcoxon test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used (p ≤ 0.05). The study found that using a facemask improved the skeletal, dental and soft tissues. It led to a forward movement of the maxilla and a rotation of the mandible, resulting in a better relationship between the maxilla and mandible. The upper incisors shifted from a crossbite to a positive overbite, and the upper lip protruded forward. The concave face became more prominent and aesthetically pleasing. Most individuals (80.6%) had positive outcomes, with the highest proportion among children aged 7–9 years. Based on the study’s findings, the facemask was highly effective for both age groups in skeletal class III malocclusion. The group of children aged 7–9 years with maxillary deficiency was more efficacious than the group of children aged 10–12 years.

Skeletal class III malocclusion; Early treatment; Facemask therapy; Vietnamese population

[1] Li Z, Hung KF, Ai QYH, Gu M, Su YX, Shan Z. Radiographic imaging for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with skeletal class III malocclusion. Diagnostics. 2024; 14: 544.

[2] Zohud O, Lone IM, Midlej K, Obaida A, Masarwa S, Schröder A, et al. Towards genetic dissection of skeletal class III malocclusion: a review of genetic variations underlying the phenotype in humans and future directions. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12: 3212.

[3] Valladares Neto J. Compensatory orthodontic treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion with anterior crossbite. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2014; 19: 113–122.

[4] Xu S, Liu Y, Hou Y, Li Y, Ge X, Wang L, et al. Maxillofacial growth changes after maxillary protraction therapy in children with class III malocclusion: a dual control group retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24: 7.

[5] Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1970; 57: 219–255.

[6] Owens D, Watkinson S, Harrison JE, Turner S, Worthington HV. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (class III malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2024; 4: CD003451.

[7] Solano-Mendoza B, Iglesias-Linares A, Yañez-Vico RM, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Alió-Sanz JJ, Solano-Reina E. Maxillary protraction at early ages. The revolution of new bone anchorage appliances. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012; 37: 219–229.

[8] Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2018; 23: 40.e1–40.e10.

[9] An Y, Hosoyama C, Nakayama Y, Yasui K, Morikuni H, Nishiura A, et al. Cephalometric analysis for Chinese children with skeletal class III craniofacial morphology. Journal of Osaka Dental University. 2022; 56: 107–113.

[10] Raghupathy Y, Ananthanarayanan V, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S. Posttreatment stability following facemask therapy in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion: a systematic review. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023; 16: 897–907.

[11] Wu Z, Zhang X, Li Z, Liu Y, Jin H, Chen Q, et al. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of orthopaedic treatment in class III malocclusion: maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage or a rapid maxillary expander. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research. 2020; 23: 1–15.

[12] Thierens L, Manalili L, De Roo N, Verdonck A, De Llano-Pérula MC, De Pauw GAM. Assessment of craniofacial maturation in preadolescents with cleft lip and/or palate using the cervical vertebral maturation method. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021; 25: 4851–4859.

[13] Nardoni DN, Siqueira DF, Cardoso Mde A, Capelozza Filho L. Cephalometric variables used to predict the success of interceptive treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and face mask. A longitudinal study. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2015; 20: 85–96.

[14] McNamara J, Brudon WJI. Tooth Size Arch Size Discrepancies. Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (pp. 63–82). 1st edn. Needham Pres: Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2001.

[15] Gokturk M, Yavan MA. Comparison of the short-term effects of tooth-bone-borne and tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion in older adolescents. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics. 2024; 85: 43–55.

[16] Dong TK, Mai TTT, Nguyen TNY, Pham TAV. Effects of facemask therapy in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion in Vietnamese children. Medical Research Archives. 2022; 10.

[17] Menéndez-Díaz I, Muriel J, Cobo JL, Álvarez C, Cobo T. Early treatment of class III malocclusion with facemask therapy. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2018; 4: 279–283.

[18] Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, Sasaki S, Sasaki S, Deguchi T, 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. The Angle Orthodontist. 2020; 90: 3–12.

[19] Ledesma-Peraza O, Sánchez-Tito M. Comparison of the posterior teeth angulations in orthodontic patients with different facial growth patterns. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2023; 15: e629–e634.

[20] Mandall N, Cousley R, DiBiase A, Dyer F, Littlewood S, Mattick R, et al. Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Orthodontics. 2016; 43: 164–175.

[21] Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2018; 23: 75–81.

[22] Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, 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. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015; 148: 641–651.

[23] Takada K, Petdachai S, Sakuda M. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal class III children treated by a modified maxillary protraction headgear and a chin cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal. European Journal of Orthodontics. 1993; 15: 211–221.

[24] Yüksel S, Uçem TT, Keykubat A. Early and late facemask therapy. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2001; 23: 559–568.