Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2018, Article ID 7946019, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7946019
Review Article

Class III Treatment with Skeletal and Dental Anchorage: A Review of Comparative Effects

1Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
2Azienda Sanitaria dell’Alto Adige, Ospedale di Merano, Bolzano, Italy
3Private Practice, Nocciano (PE), Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Roberta Clemente; ti.liamtoh@88melcybor

Received 24 January 2018; Revised 26 March 2018; Accepted 20 May 2018; Published 2 July 2018

Academic Editor: Alberto Baldini

Copyright © 2018 Roberta Clemente et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives. This review addresses the comparative effects of skeletal anchored maxillary protraction (MP) versus dental anchored MP. Materials and Methods. The studies retrieved had to have both test and control groups treated by the use of a facemask with or without the use of skeletal anchorage though either (palatal/buccal) maxillary or mandibular miniscrews/miniplates, respectively. Results. Nine articles were included. Dentoalveolar changes were seen in all the studies. In particular, a significant proclination of the upper incisors was documented in the group treated with a dental anchorage facial mask, as compared to that treated with skeletal anchorage. Comparing the two methods, almost all the studies indicated a greater maxillary advancement in the group treated with skeletal anchorage. Conclusions. Therapies with skeletal anchorage produce greater maxillary protraction, reducing undesirable dental effects.