Ignite Creation Date:
2026-03-26 @ 3:14 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-03-30 @ 3:10 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07383259
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2026-02-03
First Post:
2026-01-20
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Comparison of Maxillary Protraction Using Tooth-borne Facemask Versus Skeletal Anchorage Chin-plate in Class III Growing Patients
Sponsor:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Effects of Tooth-borne Facemask Versus Skeletal Anchorage Chin-plate Maxillary Protraction in Growing Class III Patients.
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2026-01
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This retrospective non-randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two orthopedic treatment protocols for skeletal Class III malocclusion in growing patients: a conventional tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion combined with facemask therapy, and a hybrid skeletal anchorage expander combined with chin-plate traction. Lateral cephalometric changes before and after maxillary protraction were analyzed to assess sagittal skeletal correction and dentoalveolar effects.
Detailed Description:
Skeletal Class III malocclusion is frequently associated with maxillary growth deficiency and presents significant functional and esthetic challenges. Conventional treatment using rapid maxillary expansion combined with facemask therapy is effective but limited by patient compliance and undesirable dentoalveolar effects. The introduction of skeletal anchorage devices allows the application of orthopedic forces with reduced dental compensation and extended effectiveness beyond early growth stages.
This study retrospectively evaluated growing patients (CVS1-CVS3) treated with either a tooth-borne expander and facemask or a hybrid skeletal anchorage expander combined with chin-plate traction. Cephalometric variables were measured before treatment (T0) and after completion of maxillary protraction (T1) to compare skeletal and dentoalveolar changes between protocols.
This study retrospectively evaluated growing patients (CVS1-CVS3) treated with either a tooth-borne expander and facemask or a hybrid skeletal anchorage expander combined with chin-plate traction. Cephalometric variables were measured before treatment (T0) and after completion of maxillary protraction (T1) to compare skeletal and dentoalveolar changes between protocols.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: