Abstract:Introduction: The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effects of facemask protraction combined with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction (RPE/C) vs rapid palatal expansion (RPE) alone in the early treatment of maxillary retrusive patients. Methods: Patients with a midface deficiency were recruited and randomly allocated into either the control group (RPE) or the intervention group (RPE/C). Eligibility criteria included the following: age 7 to 13 years old, Class III malocclusion, anterior crossbite, ANB less than 0 degrees, Wits appraisal less than -2 mm, A-Np less than 0 mm, and no cleft of lip or palate. The primary outcome was the degree of maxillary forward movement after treatment. The secondary outcomes were the changes of the other cephalometric variables after treatment and the treatment time. Simple randomization was carried out using a random number table at the beginning of the study. Envelopes containing the grouping information were used to ensure allocation concealment from the researchers. Blinding was applicable for cephalometric analysis only. Hyrax palatal expanders and facemask maxillary protraction were used in all patients. Patients in the RPE group were treated with rapid palatal expansion for 1 week. Patients in the RPE/C group were treated with RPE/C for 7 weeks. The expansion or constriction rate was 1 mm per day. Cephalometric analysis with traditional cephalometric measurements and an x-y coordinate system were used to compare the pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs. Independent t tests were used to compare the data between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 44 patients were randomized to either the RPE group or the RPE/C group in a 1: 1 ratio. One subject in the RPE group was lost to follow-up during the treatment. Per-protocol analysis was used. All the other 43 patients reached the treatment completion criteria and were analyzed (RPE group: n = 21; RPE/C group: n = 22). The average protraction time was 10.84 months in the RPE group, which was significantly longer than that in the RPE/C group (9.06 months) (effect size [ES], 1.78 [95% CI, 0.15, 3.42; P = 0.033]). Maxillary forward movement increased by 3.04 mm in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the RPE group (2.11 mm) (ES, -0.93 [95% CI, -1.65, -0.20; P = 0.013]). The counterclockwise rotation of the palatal plane was 1.73 degrees in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the RPE group (0.83 degrees) (ES, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.08, 1.73; P = 0.033]). The degree of mandibular downward and backward rotation was significantly smaller in the RPE/C group (P < 0.05). No serious harm was observed during treatment and research. Conclusions: Facemask maxillary protraction with RPE/C might positively affect the forward movement of the maxilla compared with facemask protraction with RPE alone in the early treatment of maxillary retrusive patients. Although the differences between the groups were statistically significant for forward movement of the maxilla and rotation of the palatal and mandibular planes, these may not be clinically relevant, since the differences were less than 1 mm and 1 degrees, respectively.

Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions : A randomized controlled clinical study

Cephalometric changes of pushing splints 3 compared to rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy on the airway space in class III growing patients: A randomized clinical trial

Effect of Maxillary Protraction with Alternating Rapid Palatal Expansion and Constriction Vs Expansion Alone in Maxillary Retrusive Patients: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of 2 treatment protocols using fixed functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: Treatment results and stability

Evaluation of the Effects of Orthopedic Treatment on the Dentofacial Structure and Upper Airway of Subjects with Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

A retrospective study evaluating the influence of Class III correction appliances on the sagittal pharyngeal airway dimension

Skeletal and dental effects of function‐generating bite appliance compared to rapid palatal expander and untreated controls

Effects of Removable Functional Appliances on the Dentoalveolar Unit in Growing Patients

Comparative Analysis of Skeletal Changes, Occlusal Changes, and Palatal Morphology in Children with Mild Class III Malocclusion Treated with Elastodontic Appliances and Bimaxillary Plates

Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions

Treatment effects of the MARA appliance and Activator-Headgear combined with fixed appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients: A retrospective longitudinal study

Comparison of the skeletodental effects of miniscrew-anchored and tooth-anchored facemask treatment in growing patients with skeletal class III malocclusions

Mandibular response after rapid maxillary expansion in class II growing patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Treatment Effects of Simple Fixed Appliance and Reverse Headgear in Correction of Anterior Crossbites

The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability--a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents

The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of two Class II correctors in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Cephalometric evaluation of changes in vertical dimension and molar position in adult non-extraction treatment with clear aligners and traditional fixed appliances

Skeletal and dental contributions of face mask and rapid palatal expansion treatment for Class Ⅲ patients in early permanent dentition

Temporomandibular joint disc position and shape in patients submitted to two protocols of rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy: A randomized clinical trial

Treatment effects of the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents.