ArticleJournal of orthodontics2016
Early class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery: a multi-centre, two-arm parallel randomized, controlled trial.
Article in Journal of orthodontics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06759896 (Comparison Between Protraction Facemask and Upper Partial Fixed Appliance for Early Class III Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison Between Protraction Facemask and Upper Partial Fixed Appliance for Early Class III Intervention: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 154 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Stability of maxillary protraction therapy in children with Class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Pooled it
- Effect of protraction facemask on the temporomandibular joint: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2018Pooled it
- Long-term three-dimensional skeletal effects of hybrid hyrax with facemask versus mentoplate in growing Class III patients: a randomized controlled trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Trial
- A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2022Trial
- Cephalometric effects of Pushing Splints 3 compared with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy in Class III malocclusion children: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2021Trial
- Positive Longitudinal Caregiver Behavioral Ratings and Self-Reported Quality of Life in Youth With Cleft Lip and Palate in Treatment for Class III Malocclusion.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Longitudinal Quality of Life Related to Facial Differences in Youth With Cleft Lip and Palate in Treatment for Class III Malocclusion.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Sella Turcica Morphology and Dimensions in Skeletal Class III Malocclusion and Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Versus Class I Individuals.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based identification and maturation assessment of the zygomaticomaxillary suture in cone-beam computed tomography images.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Early Protraction Facemask Followed by Fixed Appliance Therapy in a Growing Patient With Skeletal Class III Malocclusion: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Class III Malocclusion Interception With Maxillary Expansion and Protraction: A 9-Year Follow-Up Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Predictive Potential of Patient-Specific Biomechanical Models in Class III Protraction Therapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Beyond virality: evaluating evidence-based content delivery in social media-based pediatric orthodontic education.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Positional Changes of the Maxillary Permanent Canines After Treatment with Facemask and Hyrax: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Load and Stress Distribution for a Novel Design of Maxillary Protraction Facemask by Finite Element Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Early Class III Malocclusion Treatments-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bone-anchored maxillary protraction versus conventional orthopedic treatment for Class III malocclusion in children under 12 years: A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether patients who had received early class III protraction facemask treatment were less likely to need orthognathic surgery compared with untreated controls. This paper is a 6-year follow-up of a previous clinical trial.
designMulti-centre 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial.
settingEight United Kingdom hospital orthodontic departments.
participantsSeventy three 7- to 9-year-old children.
methodPatients were randomly allocated, stratified for gender, into an early class III protraction facemask group (PFG) (n = 35) and a control/no treatment group (CG) (n = 38). The primary outcome, need for orthognathic surgery was assessed by panel consensus. Secondary outcomes were changed in skeletal pattern, overjet, Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), self-esteem and the oral aesthetic impact of malocclusion. The data were compared between baseline (DC1) and 6-year follow-up (DC4). A per-protocol analysis was carried out with n = 32 in the CG and n = 33 in the PFG.
resultsThirty six percent of the PFG needed orthognathic surgery, compared with 66% of the CG (P = 0.027). The odds of needing surgery was 3.5 times more likely when protraction facemask treatment was not used (odds ratio = 3.34 95% CI 1.21-9.24). The PFG exhibited a clockwise rotation and the CG an anti-clockwise rotation in the maxilla (regression coefficient 8.24 (SE 0.75); 95% CI 6.73-9.75; P < 0.001) and the mandible (regression coefficient 6.72 (SE 0.73); 95% CI 5.27-8.18; P < 0.001). Sixty eight per cent of the PFG maintained a positive overjet at 6-year follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences between the PFG and CG for skeletal/occlusal improvement, self-esteem or oral aesthetic impact.
conclusionsEarly class III protraction facemask treatment reduces the need for orthognathic surgery. However, this effect cannot be explained by the maintenance of skeletal cephalometric change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.