Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT05089396
Other study ID # SA maxillary protraction
Secondary ID
Status Recruiting
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date November 22, 2021
Est. completion date October 2022

Study information

Verified date November 2021
Source Al-Azhar University
Contact Amr Embaby, BDS
Phone 00201016579279
Email amrembaby.209@azhar.edu.eg
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The aim of this study will be directed to the assessment of dentoskeletal effects concomitant with skeletally anchored maxillary protraction in orthodontic skeletal Class III patients.


Description:

Skeletal Class III is a challenging problem that is confronting orthodontists in their everyday orthodontic practice. The prevalence of this malocclusion varies globally among and within populations with the greatest incidence among Asian countries. It was reported that Class III malocclusion represents 3.98% and 5.93% of malocclusions in mixed and permanent dentitions respectively. Among Egyptians, the prevalence of Class III malocclusion during mixed dentition was found to be 5.9 % according to the sample studied by Fsifis et al. Different skeletal components contribute to the development of the classic Class III with convex or straight profiles. These components are either maxillary retrognathism, mandibular prognathism relative to other craniofacial structures, or even a combination of them. According to the sample studied by Ellis and Macnamara, they found 65% to 67% of skeletal Class III was due to maxillary skeletal retrusion. The growth and severity of the sagittal skeletal discrepancy dictate the possible treatment modalities. On one hand, Growth modification is indicated in individuals who have not reached the growth spurt yet. On the other hand, cessation of growth leaves only orthodontic camouflage and orthognathic surgery as treatment options, the severity of the anteroposterior discrepancy and dental compensation determine which of them gives the best clinical results. The most common approach for the treatment of growing Class III patients with maxillary retrognathism is the facemask (FM) accompanied by rapid maxillary expansion (RME). RME was claimed to open the midpalatal suture and affect the other nine sutures adjacent to the maxilla. Accordingly, it is said to facilitate the orthopedic effect of the facemask. However, a meta-analysis concluded that treatment with facemask with or without RME is clinically effective with a nonsignificant difference. Forces from protraction facemask are applied to dental structures so, it has side effects as mesial movement and extrusion of maxillary molars, proclination of upper incisors, retroclination of mandibular incisors, backward rotation of the mandible, and increase in the lower facial height. These side effects might be desirable or undesirable according to the clinical situation. Maximizing skeletal effects and minimizing dental effects will reduce the tendency for relapse and might be a desirable clinical outcome. For this purpose, in 1985 Kokich et al used ankylosed canines as a form of absolute anchorage for maxillary protraction. The advent of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) led to many reports with skeletally anchored maxillary protraction, Singer et al, Enacar et al, Hong et al, and Kircelli et al. This was followed by several studies applying facemask to miniplates at the zygomatic buttress, lateral nasal wall, and miniscrews (MS) in the zygomatic buttress, or in the palate. Consequently, the present study will be directed to evaluate the effects of skeletally anchored maxillary protraction.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Recruiting
Enrollment 14
Est. completion date October 2022
Est. primary completion date July 2022
Accepts healthy volunteers Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Gender All
Age group 8 Years to 14 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Growing Class III patients with a prepubertal stage of skeletal maturity according to the cervical vertebral maturation method. - Skeletal Class III malocclusion with maxillary deficiency (ANB, <0°; N perp-A<1mm) with or without mild mandibular prognathism. - Late mixed or early permanent dentition at the start of treatment characterized by a Wits appraisal of -1 mm or less and an Angle Class III molar relationship or anterior crossbite. - Vertically normal growth pattern determined by cephalometric radiographs. - Patients are free from developmental or congenital conditions such as cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. - No previous orthodontic treatment. Exclusion Criteria: - Poor oral hygiene or periodontally compromised patient. - Patients with craniofacial anomalies or previous history of trauma, bruxism, or parafunctions. - Previous orthodontic treatment.

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Other:
Maxillary protraction
A petit facemask will be used for maxillary protraction along with a facemask splint (two acrylic bite blocks connected through a transpalatal arch) in the active comparator group. in the experimental group, two miniscrews will be inserted in the anterior region of the palate one on each side of the midline to provide skeletal anchorage for the facemask splint. in both groups, a force of 380 gm to 400 gm will be applied through the extra-oral elastics the will be attached to the facemask on one side and to the facemask splint on the other side.

Locations

Country Name City State
Egypt Al-azhar university- Faculty of Dental Medicine Cairo

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Al-Azhar University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Egypt, 

References & Publications (1)

Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, Sasaki S, Sasaki S, Deguchi T, 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. 2020 Jan;90(1):3-12. doi: 10.2319/101718-750.1. Epub 2019 Aug 12. — View Citation

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary midfacial length linear distance between condylon and A points 1 year
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT00519415 - Comparative Results of Maxillary Deficiency Treatment by Tongue Plate and Facemask in Growing Patients Phase 3
Completed NCT04637568 - Paranasal Sinus Volumes of Maxillary Deficiency Patients Requiring Le Fort Osteotomy
Recruiting NCT06222970 - Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Via the "Bone Lid Technique"
Recruiting NCT00916084 - Comparative Results of Maxillary Deficiency Treatment by Fixed Tongue Appliance and Fixed Facemask in Growing Patients Phase 3
Recruiting NCT04863404 - Evaluation of the Treatment Effects of Tooth Borne Versus Bone-anchored Protraction Procedures in Class III Patients With Maxillary Deficiency N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT06446687 - Radiographic Assessment of Bone Gain Following Sinus Lifting With Simultaneous Implant Placement Using Crestal Approach With Membrane Control Technique for Bone Augmentation of Atrophied Maxillary Posterior Ridge N/A
Recruiting NCT06227351 - Completely Versus Partially Guided Zygomatic Implant N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT05135962 - Maxillary Expansion: Leaf Expander Versus Hyrax Expander N/A
Recruiting NCT06315348 - Effect on Periodontal Phenotype of Flapless Piezoincission During Orthodontic Treatment N/A