Comparison of Maxillary Protraction Using Tooth-borne Facemask Versus Skeletal Anchorage Chin-plate in Class III Growing Patients

Starting soon · Not applicable

Conditions studied: Skeletal Class III Malocclusion

In brief

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.

Key facts

Study ID

NCT07383259

Run by

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

People needed

36

Starts

2026-02-01

Expected to finish

2027-03-01

Last updated by the study team

2026-02-03

Who can join

Age: any, up to 18. Sex: any. Healthy volunteers: not accepted.

You may qualify if…

• Growing patients (CVS1-CVS3)
• Patent midpalatal suture (stages A-C)
• Skeletal Class III malocclusion (ANB < 0°, Wits < -2 mm)
• Presence of anterior crossbite or edge-to-edge incisal relationship Exclusion Criteria
• Severe craniofacial asymmetry
• Evidence of active condylar growth
• Previous orthodontic treatment
• Craniofacial malformations or syndromes
• Systemic diseases or medications affecting growth or bone metabolism

Full record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Trial information comes from ClinicalTrials.gov and is refreshed daily. TrialsForMe does not provide medical care and does not run the studies it lists.