Advantages of using micro-implant during camouflaged treatment of the non-growing Class III malocclusion: case report with in-detail discussion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56569/UDJ.2.1.2023.78-87Keywords:
orthodontics, malocclusion, Angle class III, orthodontic anchorage procedures, TADsAbstract
Background. Camouflaged orthodontic treatment as a possible rehabilitation algorithm may be proposed for the Class III malocclusion patients without remaining growth potential.
Objective. To discuss clinically significant aspects of providing camouflaged orthodontic treatment for the non-growing Class III malocclusion with the usage of temporary-anchorage devices based on presented clinical case.
Materials and Methods. Primary cohort of the publications related with the camouflaged treatment of the non-growing Class III malocclusion was formed through the literature search within PubMed database using MESH-terms and the analogical keywords within Google Scholar search engine.
Results. In present case report it was possible to achieve pleasant facial profile, and Class I occlusion with normal anterior-posterior relationships in patient with initial Class III malocclusion. The mandible arch length deficiency was corrected within the mandibular dentition, and normal alignment was achieved without altering the arch form and width parameter due to the use of Class III elastics and micro-implants as absolute anchorage. Systematized advantages of using skeletal anchorage for Class III orthodontic treatment include following: minimized drawback of dental-based anchorage, possibility for greater maxillary advancement, maximization of skeletal effect and minimization of clockwise mandible rotation, forming conditions for elastics wear during whole day with possibility to employ smaller traction forces, while minimizing risk of unwanted changes in any craniofacial structures.
Conclusion. Camouflaged orthodontic correction is a reliable treatment option for Class III malocclusion patients without remaining growth potential. Micro-implants as skeletal anchorage devices represent reliable opportunity for camouflaged orthodontic treatment of Class III malocclusion patients and changes the need in orthognathic surgery.
References
Hardy DK, Cubas YP, Orellana MF. Prevalence of angle class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol. 2012;2(4):75-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2012.24012
Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23:40.e1-40.e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl.
Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018;10:99-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S134303
Toffol LD, Pavoni C, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Orthopedic treatment outcomes in Class III malocclusion: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(3):561-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.2319/030207-108.1
Woon SC, Thiruvenkatachari B. Early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):28-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.017
Alhammadi MS, Almashraqi AA, Khadhi AH, Arishi KA, Alamir AA, Beleges EM, Halboub E. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in borderline class III malocclusion: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(11):6443-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04685-6
Alam MK, Nowrin SA, Shahid F, AlHarby H, Abutayyem H, Alswairki HJ, El-Din Mohamed SK. Orthognathic versus Camouflage Treatment of Class III Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appl Sci. 2022;12(7):3314. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073314
Rodriguez de Guzman-Barrera J, Saez Martinez C, Boronat-Catalá M, Montiel-Company JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Gandía-Franco JL, Almerich-Silla JM, Bellot-Arcis C. Effectiveness of interceptive treatment of class III malocclusions with skeletal anchorage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173875. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173875
Burns NR, Musich DR, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P. Class III camouflage treatment: what are the limits?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(1):9.e1-9.e13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.017
Kauser A, Tiwari RV, Khandelwal A, Tiwari H, Joshi SR, Baig FA, Managutti A. Preference Of Orthodontic Treatment Versus Orthognathic Surgery In Class Iii Malocclusion Cases: A Research Survey. Eur J Mol Clin Med. 2021;8(1):1271-7.
Erlingsson C, Brysiewicz P. A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. Afr J Emerg Med. 2017;7(3):93-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001
Bhaskar V. Diagnosis and treatment considerations of orthodontic miniscrews in camouflage treatment of adult Class III malocclusions by distalization of the mandibular dentition-A review of literature. Ann Dent UM. 2019;26:62-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.22452/adum.vol26no10
Kawai N, Watanabe M, Shibata M, Horiuchi S, Fushima K, Tanaka E. Treatment decision of camouflage or surgical orthodontic treatment for skeletal Class III patients based on analysis of masticatory function. J Dent Sci. 2022;17(2):822-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.09.036
Eslami S, Faber J, Fateh A, Sheikholaemmeh F, Grassia V, Jamilian A. Treatment decision in adult patients with class III malocclusion: surgery versus orthodontics. Prog Orthod. 2018;19(1):1-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-018-0218-0
Benyahia H, Azaroual MF, Garcia C, Hamou E, Abouqal R, Zaoui F. Treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusions: orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage? How to decide. Int Orthod. 2011;9(2):196-209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2011.03.005
Grinkevičienė D, Astramskaitė-Januševičienė I. Cephalometric data differences in Angle III patients selected for camouflage treatment and orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Eur Int J Sci Technol. 2020;9(4):1-11.
Tekale PD, Vakil KK, Vakil JK, Parhad SM. Orthodontic camouflage in skeletal Class III malocclusion: A contemporary review. J Orofac Res. 2014;4(2):98-102.
Sivarajan S, Zakaria NN, Azmily NA, Wey MC, Abd El-Ghafour M, Fayed MM. Determination of treatment options for Class III malocclusions in adult patients based on cephalometric values: a systematic review. Australas Orthod J. 2022;38(2):183-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0021
Lee H, Ahmad S, Frazier M, Dundar MM, Turkkahraman H. A novel machine learning model for class III surgery decision. J Orofac Orthop. 2022;1-1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-022-00421-7
Georgalis K, Woods MG. A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery. Aust Orthod J. 2015;31(2):138-48.
Araujo MT, Squeff LR. Orthodontic camouflage as a treatment alternative for skeletal Class III. Dental Press J Orthod. 2021;26(4):e21bbo4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.26.4.e21bbo4
Krishnaswamy NR. Contemporary solutions for managing Class III malocclusion. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2015;49:19-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-5742.171189
He S, Gao J, Wamalwa P, Wang Y, Zou S, Chen S. Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with multiloop edgewise arch wire and modified Class III elastics by maxillary mini-implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):630-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.2319/091312-730.1
Venugopal A, Manzano P, Vaid NR. TAD driven Class III camouflage: Eight point protocol to optimize efficiency, aesthetics and stability. Semin Orthod. 2022;28(3):164-194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2022.10.013
Almalki RA, Alhazmi A, Devanna R, Al-Subaie KS, Alanazi RK, Sawad AB, yahya Alneemi W. Evaluation of Skeletal Class III Treatment with Mini-Screw-A Systematic Review. Saudi J Oral Dent Res. 2022;7(10):261-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.36348/sjodr.2022.v07i10.002
Rivis O, Potapchuk A, Goncharuk-Khomyn M, Bokoch A. Use of Mini-Implant Anchorage For Second Molar Mesialization: Comprehensive Approach For Treatment Efficiency Analysis. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr. 2020;20:e5262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2020.018
Yasuda Y, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Camouflage treatment of severe skeletal Class III malocclusion with miniscrew anchorage. J World Fed Orthod. 2014;3(3):137-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2014.07.001
Rodriguez de Guzman-Barrera J, Saez Martinez C, Boronat-Catalá M, Montiel-Company JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Gandía-Franco JL, Almerich-Silla JM, Bellot-Arcis C. Effectiveness of interceptive treatment of class III malocclusions with skeletal anchorage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173875. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173875
Blagitz MN, de Araújo Almeida G, Normando D. Factors associated with the stability of compensatory orthodontic treatment of Class III malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;158(5):e63-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.06.030
Valarelli FP, Nascimento FE, Batista DM, Freitas KM, Cançado RH. Class III camouflage treatment with the Biofunctional technique. J Clin Orthod. 2018;52(6-7):351-358.
Rabie AB, Wong RW, Min GU. Treatment in borderline Class III malocclusion: orthodontic camouflage (extraction) versus orthognathic surgery. Open Dent J. 2008;2:38-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210600802010038
Ngan P, Moon W. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(1):22-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.012
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
