Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial

Background The use of skeletal anchorage devices for maxillary protraction in patients with class III malocclusion due to deficiency in the middle third of the face has been shown to be a promising approach to treatment of these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment of class III patients with maxillary retrusion, using orthodontic mini-implants (MI) associated with intermaxillary elastics in comparison with the rapid maxillary expansion and facemask protocol (RME/FM). Methods In this prospective non-randomized clinical trial, the sample of 24 participants between 7 and 12 years of age (median age of 10.0 years and interquartile range = 3.0 years), at the stage prior to the pre-pubertal growth spurt, was divided in two groups. In group facemask (FM) ( n = 12), the individuals received orthopedic treatment with RME/FM. In group MI ( n = 12), two mini-implants were inserted in the region close to the maxillary first molar roots, and the other two in the region of the mandibular canines. Initial and final lateral teleradiographs were taken for cephalometric evaluation of all the cases. Statistical analysis included the Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher’s exact tests. The level of significance was 5% (α = 0.05). Results Improvement was verified in the facial profile and occlusion of the participants, showing advancement of the maxilla in the two groups, with significant differences ( P ≤ 0.05) between T0 and T1 in the following measurements: SNA, ANB, Wits, Co-A, Co-Gn, NAP, A-Npog, overjet, and molar relationship. There was no statistically significant intergroup difference ( P > 0.05) in the cephalometric measurements evaluated, but the time of treatment was significant, and was faster for group MI. Conclusions The protocol with mini-implants may be an option for the correction of Class III due to maxillary deficiency.