Mohamed Adel Raghib, Mohamed Abdallah Elsaharty, Mohammad H Mohammad, Marwa Shamaa, Ahmed A El-Bialy
{"title":"Palatal versus buccal protraction using plates assisted with facemask in growing Class III patients: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Mohamed Adel Raghib, Mohamed Abdallah Elsaharty, Mohammad H Mohammad, Marwa Shamaa, Ahmed A El-Bialy","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.06.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare palatal versus buccal protraction using plates assisted with a facemask in growing Class III patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty growing Class III patients were randomly allocated into two main groups. In Group 1, a surgical mini-plate was bent into a semicircular shape and adapted to the patient's model to extend from the canine area on one side to the contralateral canine area. The adapted mini-plate was placed on the palate immediately posterior to the palatal rugae. Four self-drilling surgical mini-screws were installed with an angulation of 60°-70° to the long axis of the teeth. In Group 2, a surgical mini-plate was bent and placed in the zygomatic buttress area, according to the anatomy of the region, and fixed with screws. The end of the mini-plate was exposed over the keratinized attached gingiva near the canine, and the end holes were modified to create a hook for elastics. Mucoperiosteal flaps were repositioned and sutured. For both groups, pretreatment and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed to evaluate maxillary protraction and dentoskeletal changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A statistically significant difference was found when comparing treatment periods in both groups, with Group 1 showing a shorter treatment duration (P<0.05). Comparison of cephalometric measurements between pre- and post-treatment revealed statistically significant differences in both angular and linear dimensions (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both skeletal anchorage protocols for maxillary protraction effectively resolved the severe maxillary deficiency in growing Class III patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.06.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare palatal versus buccal protraction using plates assisted with a facemask in growing Class III patients.
Methods: Twenty growing Class III patients were randomly allocated into two main groups. In Group 1, a surgical mini-plate was bent into a semicircular shape and adapted to the patient's model to extend from the canine area on one side to the contralateral canine area. The adapted mini-plate was placed on the palate immediately posterior to the palatal rugae. Four self-drilling surgical mini-screws were installed with an angulation of 60°-70° to the long axis of the teeth. In Group 2, a surgical mini-plate was bent and placed in the zygomatic buttress area, according to the anatomy of the region, and fixed with screws. The end of the mini-plate was exposed over the keratinized attached gingiva near the canine, and the end holes were modified to create a hook for elastics. Mucoperiosteal flaps were repositioned and sutured. For both groups, pretreatment and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed to evaluate maxillary protraction and dentoskeletal changes.
Results: A statistically significant difference was found when comparing treatment periods in both groups, with Group 1 showing a shorter treatment duration (P<0.05). Comparison of cephalometric measurements between pre- and post-treatment revealed statistically significant differences in both angular and linear dimensions (P<0.05).
Conclusions: Both skeletal anchorage protocols for maxillary protraction effectively resolved the severe maxillary deficiency in growing Class III patients.