RESEARCH ARTICLE


Treatment in Borderline Class III Malocclusion: Orthodontic Camouflage (Extraction) Versus Orthognathic Surgery



A-Bakr M. Rabie1, *, Ricky W.K. Wong2, G.U. Min3
1 Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 2/F Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, HKSAR, China
2 Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 2/F Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, HKSAR, China
3 Department of Stomatology, the Second People Hospital, Shenzhen, China


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 4378
Abstract HTML Views: 1809
PDF Downloads: 824
Total Views/Downloads: 7011
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 2378
Abstract HTML Views: 946
PDF Downloads: 604
Total Views/Downloads: 3928



© Rabie et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this the Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 2/F Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, HKSAR, China Tel: 00-852-28590260 Fax: 00-852-25593803 E-mail: rabie@hkusua.hku.hk


Abstract

Aims:

To investigate the differences in morphological characteristics of borderline class III patients who had undergone camouflage orthodontic treatment or orthognathic surgery, and to compare the treatment effects between these two modalities.

Materials and Methods:

Cephalograms of 25 patients (13 orthodontic, 12 surgical) with class III malocclusion were analyzed. All had a pretreatment ANB angle greater than -5º.

Results:

Using discriminant analysis, only Holdaway angle was selected to differentiate patients in the pretreatment stage. Seventy-two per cent patients were correctly classified. In the orthodontic group, reverse overjet was corrected by retraction of the lower incisors and downward and backward rotation of the mandible. The surgical group was corrected by setback of the lower anterior dentoalveolus and uprighting of the lower incisors. No difference was found in posttreatment soft tissue measurements between the two groups.

Conclusions:

Twelve degree for the Holdaway angle can be a guideline in determining the treatment modalities for borderline class III patients, but the preferences of operators and patients are also important. (2) Both therapeutic options should highlight changes in the lower dentoalveolus and lower incisors. (3) Both treatment modalities can achieve satisfactory improvements to the people.

Key Words: Class III malocclusion, camouflage, orthognathic surgery.