Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 4, October-December, p. 401–410

doi: 10.17219/dmp/110738

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Effects of facemasks versus intraoral appliances in treating maxillary deficiency in growing patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Porówanie zastosowania masek twarzowych i aparatów wewnątrzustnych w leczeniu niedorozwoju szczęki u rosnących pacjentów – systematyczny przegląd piśmiennictwa oraz metaanaliza

Nasrin Farhadian1,B,E,F, Sepideh Soheilifar1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Masoud Abolvardi1,A,B,D,E,F, Amirfarhang Miresmailei1,E,F, Younes Mohammadi2,B,C

1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2 Modeling of Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran


Background. Class III malocclusion is one the most challenging types of orthodontic problems.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of facemasks and intraoral appliances in treating class III maxillary deficiency in growing patients through a systematic review of the available literature.
Material and Methods. Electronic and manual searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), and Scopus to find all the relevant studies published by January 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting 5–12-year-old patients who received maxillary protraction treatment with any type of facemask and comparing the facemasks with any type of intraoral appliance were included. The primary outcome measure was changes in the A point-nasion-B point angle (ANB), and the secondary outcomes included changes in the overjet, upper-1 (U1) inclination, the mandibular plane angle, and treatment time. The meta-analysis was carried out using the inverse variance-weighted random effects model.
Results. Out of 1,629 articles found in the initial search, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in the duration of treatment or in any of the cephalometric variables, with the exception of the overjet.
Conclusion. It seems that intraoral appliances and facemasks are similar in terms of dentoskeletal effects in the treatment of class III malocclusion as well as treatment duration. However, due to a lack of a sufficient number of high-quality studies, these results should be viewed with caution. Further high-quality, long-term studies are recommended.

Key words

systematic review, meta-analysis, class III malocclusion treatment, facemask, intraoral appliance

Słowa kluczowe

systematyczny przegląd piśmiennictwa, metaanaliza, leczenie wady zgryzu klasy III, maska twarzowa, aparat wewnątrzustny

References (30)

  1. Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, Hechtner M, Wehrbein H. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxil­lary expansion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(6):1181–1192.
  2. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Ghassemi M, Ghassemi A, Taban T, Imani Z. The effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients. J Orthod. 2012;39(2):95–101.
  3. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. London, UK: Mosby; 2014:2–18.
  4. Keles A, Tokmak EC, Erverdi N, Nanda R. Effect of varying the force direction on maxillary orthopedic protraction. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(5):387–396.
  5. Yoshida I, Yamaguchi N, Mizoguchi I. Prediction of post-treatment outcome after combined treatment with maxillary protraction and chincap appliances. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(1):89–96.
  6. Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(4):641–651.
  7. Maspero C, Galbiati G, Perillo L, Favero L, Giannini L. Orthopaedic treatment efficiency in skeletal Class III malocclusions in young patients: RME-face mask versus TSME. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13(3):225–230.
  8. Showkatbakhsh R, Toumarian L, Jamilian A, Sheibaninia A, Mirkarimi M, Taban T. The effects of face mask and tongue plate on maxil­lary deficiency in growing patients: A randomized clinical trial. J Orthod. 2013;40(2):130–136.
  9. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Behnaz M, Ghassemi M, Ghassemi A. The short-term effects of face mask and fixed tongue appliance on maxillary deficiency in growing patients – a randomized clinical trial. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2015;26(1):33–38.
  10. Wells AP, Sarver DM, Proffit WR. Long-term efficacy of reverse pull headgear therapy. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):915–922.
  11. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(3):299–309.
  12. Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL Jr, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 5th ed. London, UK: Mosby; 2011:502–508.
  13. Tortop T, Kaygisiz E, Gencer D, Yuksel S, Atalay Z. Modified tandem traction bow appliance compared with facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):642–648.
  14. Husson AH, Burhan AS, Salma FB, Nawaya FR. Dentoskeletal effects of the modified tandem appliance vs the facemask appliance in the treatment of skeletal class III malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(7):522–529.
  15. Seehra J, Fleming PS, Mandall N, Dibiase AT. A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(1):96–101.
  16. Chong YH, Ive JC, Artun J. Changes following the use of protraction headgear for early correction of Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(5):351–362.
  17. Kim JH, Viana MA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: A meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(6):675–685.
  18. Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK. Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: A comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(2):204–212.
  19. Ucem TT, Ucuncü N, Yüksel S. Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(6):672–679.
  20. Baik HS, Jee SH, Lee KJ, Oh TK. Treatment effects of Fränkel functional regulator III in children with class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(3):294–301.
  21. Kilic N, Celikoglu M, Oktay H. Effects of the functional regulator III on profile changes in subjects with maxillary deficiency. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(6):729–734.
  22. Kurt H, Alioğlu C, Karayazgan B, Tuncer N, Kılıçoğlu H. The effects of two methods of Class III malocclusion treatment on temporomandibular disorders. Eur J Orthod. 2010:33(6):636–641.
  23. Godt A, Zeyher C, Schatz-Maier D, Göz G. Early treatment to correct Class III relations with or without face masks. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(1):44–49.
  24. Showkatbakhsh R, Jamilian A, Taban T, Golrokh M. The effects of face mask and tongue appliance on maxillary deficiency in growing patients: A randomized clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2012;13(3):266–272.
  25. Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:CD003452.
  26. Woon SC, Thiruvenkatachari B. Early orthodontic treatment for Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):28–52.
  27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  28. Stone PW. Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Appl Nurs Res. 2002;15(3):197–198.
  29. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 4. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
  30. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18.