Treatment effects of maxillary protraction with palatal plates vs conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion

Evaluate the treatment effects of maxillary protraction using palatal plates and compare them to those with conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.Forty patients were divided into 2 groups according to the type of anchorage used: group 1 (n = 20; mean age, 10.5 ± 1.6 years; palatal plates) and group 2 (n = 20; mean age, 10.0 ± 1.2 years; tooth-borne appliances). Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after maxillary protraction. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables were measured. For statistical analysis, paired and independent t tests were performed.Group 1 showed maxilla advancement by 2.3 ± 1.0 mm compared with group 2 by 0.9 ± 0.6 mm, and group 2 indicated clockwise rotation of the mandible, but there was no such clockwise rotation in group 1 (P <0.001). Group 1 had a less lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors than group 2 (IMPA, -1.0 ± 3.8° vs -3.8 ± 2.8°; P <0.05). There was no difference in soft-tissue changes between the 2 groups.A facemask with palatal plate induced maxillary advancement with less mandibular clockwise rotation and dental movement than conventional tooth-borne anchorage. This modality can be used efficiently for maxillary protraction in growing patients with Class III malocclusion.