- Visibility 20 Views
- Downloads 5 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijodr.2024.021
-
CrossMark
Ortho-surgical management of skeletal class III malocclusion: A case report
- Author Details:
-
Binu Purushothaman
-
Amrutha Krishnan
-
Naseem Keeranthodika
-
Indu Nambiar *
-
Aswathi Kandoth
-
Muhammed Fairooz
Binu Purushothaman
Amrutha Krishnan
Naseem Keeranthodika
Indu Nambiar *
Aswathi Kandoth
Muhammed Fairooz
Introduction
Human physical attractiveness is determined by a harmonious facial profile. Ideal beauty may be deteriorated in case of skeletal disharmony, occlusal problems, and soft tissue strain. Even though the concept of beauty has changed over the centuries and differs from one population to another, it has always been a subject of interest and importance to people of all cultures.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Dentofacial deformities cause an alteration in the relation between the maxilla and mandible, resulting in compromised function and aesthetics. Skeletal class III malocclusion requires prompt attention once diagnosed. It may be due to retrognathic maxilla, prognathic mandible, or a combination of both. The possible therapeutic options to manage dentoskeletal discrepancies are early modification of growth, orthodontic camouflage through dental compensation, or orthodontic and surgical repositioning of the jaw bases.
This case report presents the treatment of an adult girl with class III skeletal discrepancy by combined ortho-surgical management.
Case Report
A female patient, 18 years of age presented with a chief complaint of forwardly placed lower jaw.
Extra oral examination revealed mesocephalic head with leptoprosopic facial type, concave profile with anterior divergence, acute nasolabial angle, deficient midface, competent lips, obliterated mentolabial sulcus, average nose and increased lower anterior facial height.
Intraorally, molar relation and canine relation were observed to be class III bilaterally. Upper anteriors were in crossbite with a reverse overjet of 5mm. Crossbite was also present in relation to 15. Upper midline was shifted to right by 1mm and lower midline was shifted to right by 2mm. Both arches were U-shaped with mesiopalatally rotated 13, 15 and mesiolingually rotated 32, 42 ([Figure 1]).
Pre-treatment radiographic assessment
The patient was skeletal class III with micrognathic and prognathic mandible. The patient had a hyperdivergent growth pattern. ([Table 1]) The maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth were proclined. Orthopantomogram (OPG) showed unerupted 18, 28, 38, and 48 ([Figure 2]).
Diagnosis
Angles class III malocclusion on a class III skeletal base with prognathic mandible, retrognathic maxilla, proclined upper and lower anteriors, multiple rotated teeth, crossbite irt 15, upper and lower midline shift to right on an average growth pattern individual.
Problem list
Concave profile
Class III skeletal pattern
Reverse overjet of 5 mm
Molar and canine relationship
Crossbite in relation to 15
Mesiopalatally rotated: 15,13
Mesiolingually rotated: 32,42
Midline shift
Treatment plan
After discussing the treatment options with the patient, the treatment was planned to be a combined ortho-surgical approach. Presurgical orthodontics was planned to gain negative overjet. Bijaw surgery (LeForte I maxillary advancement 4 mm + BSSO mandibular setback 7 mm) was decided.
Treatment progress
The treatment commenced with extraction of 18, 28, 38, 48 and fixed orthodontic treatment for decompensation with MBT prescription 0.022*0.028 brackets. Archwire progressed sequentially from 0.014, 0.018, 0.016*0.022, 0.017*0.025 NiTi wires to 0.018, 0.017*0.025, 0.019*0.025 SS wires. Class II elastics were used for retraction of maxillary incisors and proclination of mandibular incisors. Opencoil spring was engaged between 41 and 43 for aligning 42. Decompensation was complete with a negative overjet of 7 mm after 12 months of treatment ([Figure 3]).
Pre-treatment lateral cephalogram was digitized and evaluated on CTARS software. The treatment simulation was done with 4 mm anterior sagittal movement of maxilla and 7 mm mandibular setback ([Figure 4]).
Presurgical mock surgery
Facebow transfer was done and the relationship of FH plane to maxilla was recorded to the semiadjustable articulator. Wax bite in occlusion was taken to fix the mandibular model. Horizontal lines at a distance of 10 mm were drawn parallel to occlusal plane. Vertical lines were drawn passing through mesio-buccal cusp of second molars, cusp tip of canines and midline. Maxilla was advanced 4 mm with reference to the horizontal and vertical lines. Intermediate acrylic splint was formed at this position. Another pair of models were articulated in the final position after mandibular set back and final splint was prepared.
Surgical phase
BSSO setback and Lefort 1 advancement under GA were performed. Vestibular incision placed 5mm above the mucogingival junction of maxilla extending from 17 to 27. Lefort I osteotomy done and maxillary advancement of 4mm using interim splint was done. Fixation was done using 2* 8 mm titanium plate and screw.
For mandible, incision was placed over anterior border of ramus to mesial aspect of first molar bilaterally. BSSO done and osteotomised segment repositioned (7mm setback) using splint. Maxillomandibular stabilization was done using intermaxillary elastics. Haemostasis and suturing were performed.
Post-surgical management
Bijaw surgery (maxillary advancement 4 mm + mandibular setback 7 mm) was done. Patient was instructed to wear class III elastics to prevent any relapse post surgically for 6 weeks. Diagonal elastics were given from 23 to 43. In the finishing stage, repositioning of brackets was done, and vertical settling elastics were given.
Post-treatment assessment
The patient had an ideal overjet and overbite of 2 mm, and nearly concordant midlines post-treatment. The case was finished in class I molar relation, class I incisor, class I canine, and premolar relation and canine guided occlusion ([Figure 5]). Desirable root parallelism was achieved ([Figure 6]).
The ANB was improved from –5° to +1° and Wits changed from –8mm to -4mm, thus showing marked improvement in skeletal class III malocclusion. Maxillary incisor inclination changed from 34° to 31° ([Table 2]).
[Figure 7] shows intra-oral photographs with fixed lingual retainers and Begg wrap-around retainers in both upper and lower arch.
|
Measurement |
Mean |
Pre-treatment |
|
Maxilla |
|
|
|
SNA |
82 ± 2˚ |
85 |
|
Na per to Pt A |
0-1 mm |
0 mm |
|
Co to Pt A |
|
78 mm |
|
Mandible |
|
|
|
SNB |
80±2˚ |
90˚ |
|
Na per Pog |
-8 to -6mm |
8 mm |
|
Co-Gn |
|
113 mm |
|
Max-mand relation |
|
|
|
ANB |
2˚ |
-5 |
|
WITS |
|
BO ahead of AO by 8 mm |
|
McNAMARA diff |
|
35 mm |
|
Vertical |
|
|
|
FMA |
25 ±3˚ |
27˚ |
|
SN to Go-Gn |
31˚ |
29˚ |
|
Sum of posterior angles |
396±4˚ |
392˚ |
|
Jarabak ratio |
62-65 |
64% |
|
Dental |
|
|
|
U1 to N-A (angle) |
22˚ |
34˚ |
|
U1 to N-A (mm) |
4mm |
7mm |
|
U1 to SN |
102˚ |
117˚ |
|
L1 to N-B (mm) |
4mm |
7mm |
|
L1 to N-B (angle) |
25˚ |
30 ˚ |
|
L1 to A-Pog (mm) |
1-2mm |
8mm |
|
L1 to A-Pog (angle) |
22˚ |
34˚ |
|
Interincisal angle |
131˚ |
122˚ |
|
IMPA |
90˚ |
88˚ |
|
U6 to PtV |
17 ± 3 mm |
23mm |
|
Soft tissue |
|
|
|
E line to lower lip |
-2 to 2mm |
0 mm |
|
S line to upper lip |
0mm |
3 mm |
|
S line to lower lip |
-2mm |
4 mm |
|
Nasolabial angle |
102 +8 |
83˚ |
|
Measurement |
Mean |
Post treatment |
|
Maxilla |
|
|
|
SNA |
82 ± 2˚ |
87 |
|
Na per to Pt A |
0-1 mm |
5mm |
|
Co to Pt A |
|
80mm |
|
Mandible |
|
|
|
SNB |
80±2˚ |
86˚ |
|
Na per Pog |
-8 to -6mm |
12 mm |
|
Co-Gn |
|
105mm |
|
Max-Mand Relation |
|
|
|
ANB |
2˚ |
1 |
|
WITS |
|
BO ahead of AO by 4mm |
|
McNAMARA diff |
|
25 mm |
|
Vertical |
|
|
|
FMA |
25 ±3˚ |
23˚ |
|
SN to Go-Gn |
31˚ |
26˚ |
|
Sum of posterior angles |
396±4˚ |
390˚ |
|
Jarabak ratio |
62-65 |
69.6% |
|
Dental |
|
|
|
U1 to N-A (angle) |
22˚ |
31˚ |
|
U1 to N-A (mm) |
4mm |
7mm |
|
U1 to SN |
102˚ |
118˚ |
|
L1 to N-B (mm) |
4mm |
6mm |
|
L1 to N-B (angle) |
25˚ |
27 ˚ |
|
L1 to A-Pog (mm) |
1-2mm |
5mm |
|
L1 to A-Pog (angle) |
22˚ |
30˚ |
|
Interincisal angle |
131˚ |
121˚ |
|
IMPA |
90˚ |
88˚ |
|
U6 to PtV |
17 ± 3 mm |
26 |
|
Soft Tissue |
|
|
|
E line to lower lip |
-2 to 2mm |
0mm |
|
S line to upper lip |
0mm |
1 mm |
|
S line to lower lip |
-2mm |
2 mm |
|
Nasolabial angle |
102 +8 |
92˚ |
Discussion
Despite oral and maxillofacial surgery being traumatic and invasive, many patients opt the treatment not only to improve function but also for esthetic improvements in the smile or face. It offers the benefits of improving the self-esteem, satisfaction, self-confidence, social functioning, and interpersonal relationships of patients.[6] Therefore, this case report aims to create an awareness among patients on the vast possibilities of the multidisciplinary approach by orthognathic surgery combined with orthodontics.
Skeletal class III patients may be surgically corrected with maxillary advancement, mandibular setback or a combination of both. The type of surgery to be performed will depend on the site, the amount of discrepancy, and also facial aesthetics.[7] Many times, maxillary advancement is chosen based on the probability of potential impairment of airways.
The literature on the effects of orthognathic surgery on airway space improvement is controversial. In a study conducted by Azavedo et al,[8] it was concluded that maxillary advancement and mandibular setback surgery induced a slight increase in upper airway volume, although the difference was not statistically significant. In contrast to this, Park et al[9] found no difference in the total volume of airways, although they did find a decrease in the oropharyngeal region.
When upper and lower portions of the airways were separately evaluated in similar studies, it was found that advancing the maxilla enlarged the upper airway while mandibular setback reduced the lower airway, as a compensatory process.[10] This fact justifies the bimaxillary surgical procedures undertaken even though the maxilla appeared to be orthognathic in the present case.
Critical appraisal
An orthognathic profile was achieved with surgical treatment that addressed the skeletal malocclusion and the concave profile of the patient.
The parallelism of roots was achieved.
Upper incisor proclination could have been corrected by extraction of premolars.
Midline shift could have been corrected.
Patient’s Consent
The patient’s consent has been obtained for reproducing her photographs.
Ethical Clearance
Not applicable.
Conflicting of Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Source of Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
- N Powell, B Humphreys. . Proportions of the aesthetic face 1984. [Google Scholar]
- DB Giddon. Orthodontic applications of psychological and perceptual studies of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995. [Google Scholar]
- NV Kamat, PK Chandra, A Godinho. Ortho-Surgical Management of Class III Malocclusion in Identical Twins - Case Report. J Indian Orthodontic Soc 2009. [Google Scholar]
- R K Gupta, T Tikku, R Khanna, H Gupta, K Srivastava, SL Verma. Ortho-surgical management of skeletal Class III malocclusion. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2015. [Google Scholar]
- A Mendiratta, Aam Mesquita, N V Kamat, V Dhupar. Orthosurgical Management of a Severe Class III Malocclusion. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014. [Google Scholar]
- CE Ashton-James, A Chemke-Dreyfus. Can orthognathic surgery be expected to improve patients' psychological well-being? The challenge of hedonic adaptation. Eur J Oral Sci 2019. [Google Scholar]
- EM Boeck, N Lunardi, AS Pinto, KEDC Pizzol, RJN Boeck. Occurrence of skeletal malocclusions in Brazilian patients with dentofacial deformities. Braz Dent J 2011. [Google Scholar]
- MS Azevêdo, AW Machado, S Barbosa Ida, LS Esteves, VÁ Rocha, MA Bittencourt. Evaluation of upper airways after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in patients with skeletal Class III pattern using cone-beam computed tomography. Dental Press J Orthod 2016. [Google Scholar]
- E Panou, M Motro, M Ates, A Acar, N Erverdi. Dimensional changes of maxillary sinuses and pharyngeal airway in Class III patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthod 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Y Lee, YS Chun, N Kang, M Kim. Volumetric changes in the upper airway after bimaxillary surgery for skeletal Class III malocclusions: a case series study using 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012. [Google Scholar]