Journal of Scientific Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Extraction vs Nonextraction Approach for Skeletal Class III in Growing Individuals: A Case Series

A Shanaj Doulath, Aniruddh V Yashwant, Lijin James

Keywords : Extraction and nonextraction, Facemask, Fixed posterior bite plane, Growing patient, Skeletal class III

Citation Information : Doulath AS, Yashwant AV, James L. Extraction vs Nonextraction Approach for Skeletal Class III in Growing Individuals: A Case Series. 2019; 9 (1):19-29.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10083-0907

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Early treatment of skeletal class III becomes necessary in growing patients to prevent the future deterioration of the existing malocclusion and avoiding the complex orthognathic surgical procedures to correct the same. This case series explains two different treatment modalities for growing patients with skeletal class III malocclusion with anterior crossbite, who have differing degree of growth potential, growth pattern, facial profile, lip competency and strain, amount of skeletal discrepancy, and intra-arch relationships. The treatment goals have been achieved efficiently in each situation, due to prompt diagnosis and utilization of proper treatment mechanics.

  1. Rabie ABM, Gu Y. Diagnostic criteria for pseudo-class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70241-1.
  2. Stability of class III treatment strategies in growing patients: a systematic review of the literature. In: Ngan PW, Deguchi T, Roberts EW, ed. Orthodontic Treatment of Class III Malocclusion. Bentham Science Publishers; 2014. pp. 151–178. Available from:
  3. Fatima J, Jain P, Pathak AK, Angrish P. A witty hand of orthodontic treatment- Fixed partial appliance. JOADMS 2015;1(3):86–89.
  4. Estreia F, Almerich J, Gascon F. Interceptive correction of anterior crossbite. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1991;15(3):157–159.
  5. Marshall SD, Low LE, Holton NE, Franciscus RG, Frazier M, Qian F, et al. Chin development as a result of differential jaw growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(4):456–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.038.
  6. Ghoneima A, Abdel-Fattah E, Hartsfield J, El-Bedwehi A, Kamel A, Kula K. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on the cranial and circummaxillary sutures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(4):510–519. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.10.024.
  7. Azamian Z, Shirban F. Treatment options for class III malocclusion in growing patients with emphasis on maxillary protraction. Scientifica (Cairo) 2016;2016:8105163. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8105163.
  8. Gencer D, Kaygisiz E, Yüksel S, Tortop T. Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2015;85(2):278–283. DOI: 10.2319/013114-83.1.
  9. Sukh R, Singh G, Tandon P. A new modified tandem appliance for management of developing class III malocclusion. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4(4):515–519. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.123062.
  10. Sugawara J, Asano T, Endo N, Mitani H. Long-term effects of chincap therapy on skeletal profile in mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98(2):127–133. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70006-X.
  11. Rey D, Aristizabal JF, Oberti G, Angel D. Mandibular cervical headgear in orthopedic and orthodontic treatment of class III cases. World J Orthod 2006;7(2):165–176.
  12. Ramos AL. Class III treatment using facial mask: stability after 10 years. Dent Press J Orthod 2014;19(5):123–135. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.5.123-135.bbo.
  13. Canturk BH, Celikoglu M. Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure. Angle Orthod 2015;85(2):284–291. DOI: 10.2319/031114-176.1.
  14. Gawthaman M, Disha P, Mathian VM, Vinodh S. A fixed partial appliance approach towards treatment of anterior single tooth crossbite: report of two cases. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9(2):119–121. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_19_17.
  15. Ceyhan D, Akdik C. Taking a glance at anterior crossbite in children: case series. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(4):679–682. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_633_17.
  16. Menéndez-Díaz I, Muriel J, Cobo JL, Álvarez C, Cobo T. Early treatment of class III malocclusion with facemask therapy. Clin Exp Dent Res 2018;4(6):279–283. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.144.
  17. Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, Hechtner M, Wehrbein H. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(6):1181–1192. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1478-4.
  18. Masucci C, Franchi L, Defraia E, Mucedero M, Cozza P, Baccetti T. Stability of rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy: a long-term controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(4):493–500. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.09.031.
  19. Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, Nute S, Stivaros N, McDowall R, et al. Is early class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up. J Orthod 2010;37(3):149–161. DOI: 10.1179/14653121043056.
  20. Miura F, Mogi M, Ohura Y, Karibe M. The super-elastic Japanese NiTi alloy wire for use in orthodontics part III. Studies on the Japanese NiTi alloy coil springs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(2):89–96. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90356-3.
  21. Abdelrahman RS, Al-Nimri KS, Al Maaitah EF. A clinical comparison of three aligning archwires in terms of alignment efficiency: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2015;85(3):434–439. DOI: 10.2319/041414-274.1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.