Additional Authors

Audrey Eller, DDS 2025; Noah Kim, DDS 2025; & Justin Wu, DDS 2026

Presentation Category

Other

Introduction/Context/Diagnosis

Introduction: Skeletal class III malocclusion can be attributed to maxillary retrognathism, mandibular prognathism, or a combination of the two. Common treatment modalities are largely dependent on the age and skeletal maturation of the patient. Skeletally anchored maxillary protraction (SAMP) aims to use skeletal anchorage to allow for orthopedic correction in patients at or past their pubertal peak. Aims: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of skeletally anchored maxillary protraction (SAMP) treatment compared to conventional treatment on skeletal, dental, and profile outcomes. The following factors will be evaluated as potential predictors for SAMP success: age, sex, ethnicity, CVM, and spheno-occipital synchondrosis maturation. Circum-maxillary suture opening is also evaluated. Secondary aims include effects of SAMP treatment on patients’ airway minimal axial area and on treatment duration. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from SAMP treatment group (n=25) and conventional treatment group (n=22) were sourced from the University of the Pacific Orthodontics Clinic and one private practice. SAMP treatment CBCT and casts were taken at treatment start (T1), progress (T2), and debond (T3). Convention treatment group CBCT and casts were taken at treatment start (T1) and debond (T3). Three dimensional cephalometric analysis and superimposition as well as SOS maturation and circum-maxillary suture analysis was done in InVivo, cast measurements and evaluation were done in OrthoCAD, and airway minimal axial area was done in Dolphin Imaging. Preliminary Results: Preliminary results show higher increase in SNA in SAMP compared to conventional with SNB and MP-SN show no significant change. SAMP group shows greater improvement in upper and lower lip advancement. Conclusions: These preliminary findings show that SAMP may be a promising treatment modality for orthopedic correction for patients past their pubertal peak, offering improvements in skeletal AP and good vertical control as well as improvements in soft tissue. Dental side effects include incisor proclination.

Comments/Acknowledgements

Presentation Category: PIP: Bench or Clinical Research

Location

Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA

Format

Presentation

Included in

Dentistry Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 8th, 2:15 PM May 8th, 5:00 PM

Effectiveness and Predictability of Skeletally Anchored Maxillary Protraction in Late Adolescents and Young Adult Class III Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using CBCT

Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA

Introduction: Skeletal class III malocclusion can be attributed to maxillary retrognathism, mandibular prognathism, or a combination of the two. Common treatment modalities are largely dependent on the age and skeletal maturation of the patient. Skeletally anchored maxillary protraction (SAMP) aims to use skeletal anchorage to allow for orthopedic correction in patients at or past their pubertal peak. Aims: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of skeletally anchored maxillary protraction (SAMP) treatment compared to conventional treatment on skeletal, dental, and profile outcomes. The following factors will be evaluated as potential predictors for SAMP success: age, sex, ethnicity, CVM, and spheno-occipital synchondrosis maturation. Circum-maxillary suture opening is also evaluated. Secondary aims include effects of SAMP treatment on patients’ airway minimal axial area and on treatment duration. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from SAMP treatment group (n=25) and conventional treatment group (n=22) were sourced from the University of the Pacific Orthodontics Clinic and one private practice. SAMP treatment CBCT and casts were taken at treatment start (T1), progress (T2), and debond (T3). Convention treatment group CBCT and casts were taken at treatment start (T1) and debond (T3). Three dimensional cephalometric analysis and superimposition as well as SOS maturation and circum-maxillary suture analysis was done in InVivo, cast measurements and evaluation were done in OrthoCAD, and airway minimal axial area was done in Dolphin Imaging. Preliminary Results: Preliminary results show higher increase in SNA in SAMP compared to conventional with SNB and MP-SN show no significant change. SAMP group shows greater improvement in upper and lower lip advancement. Conclusions: These preliminary findings show that SAMP may be a promising treatment modality for orthopedic correction for patients past their pubertal peak, offering improvements in skeletal AP and good vertical control as well as improvements in soft tissue. Dental side effects include incisor proclination.

 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.