Clinical Research Directory
Browse clinical research sites, groups, and studies.
Comparison of Maxillary Protraction Using Tooth-borne Facemask Versus Skeletal Anchorage Chin-plate in Class III Growing Patients
Sponsor: Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Summary
This retrospective non-randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two orthopedic treatment protocols for skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing patients: a conventional tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion combined with facemask therapy, and a hybrid skeletal anchorage expander combined with chin-plate traction. Lateral cephalometric changes before and after maxillary protraction were analyzed to assess sagittal skeletal correction and dentoalveolar effects.
Official title: Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Effects of Tooth-borne Facemask Versus Skeletal Anchorage Chin-plate Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class III Patients.
Key Details
Gender
All
Age Range
Any - 18 Years
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Enrollment
36
Start Date
2026-02
Completion Date
2027-03
Last Updated
2026-02-03
Healthy Volunteers
No
Conditions
Interventions
Tooth-Borne Expander with Facemask (FM)
Bonded acrylic splint-type Hyrax expander with hooks in the maxillary canine region. Expansion activated once daily (0.25 mm). Facemask therapy initiated two weeks after expansion onset with 400 g per side of elastic traction, directed approximately 30° downward relative to the occlusal plane, worn 14-16 hours per day.
Hybrid Skeletal Anchorage Expander with Chin-Plate (SA)
Modified Hybrid Hyrax expander supported by first molars and anchored with miniscrews placed bilaterally in a paramedian position. Expansion activated once daily (0.25 mm). Mandibular chin-plates (bollard-type or single chin-plate depending on eruption stage) were surgically inserted, and Class III elastics delivering 400 g per side were applied following a progressive loading protocol.