Orthodontic-surgical treatment of Class III malocclusion with extraction of an impacted canine and multi-segmented maxillary surgery

Establishment of a treatment plan is based on efficacy and easy application by the clinician, and acceptance by the patient. Treatment of adult patients with Class III malocclusion might require orthognathic surgery, especially when the deformity is severe, with a significant impact on facial esthetics. Impacted teeth can remarkably influence treatment planning, which should be precise and concise to allow a reasonably short treatment time with low biologic cost. We report here the case of a 20-year-old man who had a skeletal Class III malocclusion and impaction of the maxillary right canine, leading to remarkable deviation of the maxillary midline; this was his chief complaint. Because of the severely deviated position of the impacted canine, treatment included extraction of the maxillary right canine and left first premolar for midline correction followed by leveling, alignment, correction of compensatory tooth positioning, and orthognathic surgery to correct the skeletal Class III malocclusion because of the severe maxillary deficiency. This treatment approach allowed correction of the maxillary dental midline discrepancy to the midsagittal plane and establishment of good occlusion and optimal esthetics. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:840-9)

Nonextraction treatment of a skeletal Class III malocclusion

This case report describes the nonsurgical, nonextraction therapy of a 16-year-old boy with a skeletal Class III malocclusion, a prognathic mandible, and a retrusive maxilla. He was initially classified as needing orthognathic surgery, but he and his parents wanted to avoid that. The Class III malocclusion was corrected with a rapid palatal expander and a maxillary protraction mask followed by nonextraction orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances, combined with short Class III and vertical elastics in the anterior area. The height of the maxillary alveolar process and the vertical face height were slightly increased with treatment. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved, and the facial profile improved substantially. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 736-45)

Six-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in permanent-tooth Class III restorations

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the 6-year performance of the ART (atraumatic restorative treatment) approach in Class III restorations in permanent teeth. Materials and Methods: A total of 127 ART Class III restorations, using Ketac-Molar (3M ESPE) ionomer cement, was performed in 58 adult patients by one experienced operator in 1998. After a 6 years, 34 patients and 65 restorations were evaluated according to ART criteria. Two calibrated examiners carried out the evaluation. Data were analyzed by exact 95% Confidence Interval and Survival Analysis using the Jackknife method for standard error determination. Results: Among assessed restorations, 73.8% (95% CI = 61.5% to 86.2%) were in good condition and classified as successful, with a 67.6% (95% CI = 54.4% to 80.7%) cumulative survival rate. Failed restorations included 13.9% completely or partially missing restorations, 9.2% restorations that had been replaced by other treatment, 1.5% restorations with a large defect at the margin, and 1.5% restorations that presented high wear on the surface. No caries was observed even in those teeth in which restorations were absent. Conclusion: The 6-year success rate of the ART approach in anterior permanent teeth (Class III) was considered high.

Class III subdivision malocclusion corrected with asymmetric intermaxillary elastics

Correcting a Class III subdivision malocclusion is usually a challenge for an orthodontist, especially if the patient`s profile does not allow for any extractions. One treatment option is to use asymmetric intermaxillary elastics to correct the unilateral anteroposterior discrepancy. However, the success of this method depends on the individual response of each patient and his or her compliance in using the elastics. The objectives of this article were to present a successful treatment of a Class III subdivision patient with this approach and to illustrate and discuss the dentoskeletal changes that contributed to the correction. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:221-30)