Buscar en
Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia Maxillary protraction through skeletal anchorage in growing patients. Literature...
Información de la revista
Vol. 4. Núm. 3.
Páginas e153-e156 (Julio - Septiembre 2016)
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 4. Núm. 3.
Páginas e153-e156 (Julio - Septiembre 2016)
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmo.2016.10.030
Open Access
Maxillary protraction through skeletal anchorage in growing patients. Literature review
Protracción maxilar mediante anclaje esqueletal en pacientes clases III en crecimiento. Revisión bibliográfica
Irving Giovanni Huízar González1,
Autor para correspondencia

Corresponding author.
, Eliezer García López2
University Center of Health Sciences, Guadalajara University
Contenido relaccionado
Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia. 2016;4:155-810.1016/j.rmo.2016.10.021
Irving Giovanni Huízar González, Eliezer García López
Información del artículo
Texto completo
Descargar PDF
Figuras (4)
Mostrar másMostrar menos

Early treatment of skeletal Class III patients is usually handled with the use of maxillary protraction face mask. The results of this orthopedic therapy are often accompanied by adverse dentoalveolar effects. An alternative treatment is skeletal anchorage comprised of temporary anchorage devices (TADs), which uses two titanium plates fixed with mini implants placed in the zygomatic process of the maxilla and two side plates between the lower canine and right and left and the use of intermaxillary elastics. This results in maxillary advancement and improvement of facial aesthetics while reducing dentoalveolar adverse effects.

Maxillary protraction
skeletal anchorage
skeletal class III

El tratamiento temprano de pacientes clases III esqueletal generalmente se maneja con el uso de la máscara facial de protracción maxilar, en el cual los resultados de esta terapia ortopédica frecuentemente son acompañados de efectos dentoalveolares desfavorables. Una alternativa de tratamiento es el anclaje esquelético comprendido de dispositivos de anclaje temporal, el cual utiliza dos placas de titanio fijadas con mini-implantes colocadas en los procesos cigomáticos de los maxilares y dos placas entre el lateral y canino inferior derecho e izquierdo, además del uso de elásticos intermaxilares, obteniendo como resultado un avance maxilar y mejoramiento de la estética facial y disminuyendo los efectos dentoalveolares desfavorables.

Palabras clave:
Protracción maxilar
anclaje esqueletal
clase III esqueletal
Texto completo

Maxillary protraction with the use of facemask at early ages is the treatment of choice for skeletal class III patients. Such treatment generates a positive overjet through the combination of dentoalveolar and skeletal movements, since the forces are applied mainly to the teeth 12 to 16hours per day for 9 to 12 months, causing undesirable effects.1

Short-term studies of maxillary protraction have shown only limited effects on mandibular advancement (2-3mm on average) in addition to a posterior mandibular rotation and dentoalveolar changes (proclination of the maxillary incisors, mesialization and extrusion of maxillary molars and retroclination of mandibular incisors).2 Long-term results of maxillary protraction indicate that there is a relapse rate of 25%- 33% of patients which presented a negative overjet relapse. In this kind of treatment orthopaedic effects must be maximized since dentoalveolar changes are those that present the greatest relapse.3

However, a small number of patients with skeletal class III problems will ultimately require orthognathic surgery, which is why any treatment that can eliminate or reduce the extent of the problem is of great help.4

Skeletal anchorage in growing patients

In recent years there has been an increase in the use of temporary anchorage devices (TADs), which are often used in orthognathic surgery and fracture fixation. Skeletal anchorage devices have been used successfully in orthodontics to achieve multiple movements such as dental intrusions, open bite correction, molar distalization, etc. and in recent studies they have been given applications in orthopaedic treatments.5

Kokich in 1985 introduced the use of absolute anchorage to achieve maxillary protraction. He used protraction forces with the use of a facemask and intentionally used as anchorage anquilosed deciduous canines with the aim of treating a patient with maxillary deficiency.6 Afterwards, Smalley experimented with osseointegrated implants for the maxillary protraction in monkeys using a force of 600g per side to stimulate circumaxillary sutures. An anterior displacement of 8mm was obtained.7 Singer placed mini implants in the zygomatic processes of the maxillae implementing 400g of force to a child with sequelae of cleft lip and palate (maxillary retrusion) thus obtaining as a result a maxillary advancement of 4mm as well as a descent due to the vector of force application. Additionally, an improvement in the patient's profile was caused by a posterior mandibular rotation.8

Indications for skeletal anchorage

TADs as skeletal anchorage are used in skeletal class III patients with hypoplasia of the maxilla determined by cephalometric analysis and soft tissue profile evaluation, in addition to presenting molar class III and negative overjet. These patients must be between the ages of 9 to 14 years in a pre-pubertal period.9

The surgical procedure described by Dr. Hugo De Clerck consists in the placement of four mini plates placed in each one of the maxillary zygomatic processes. The mini plates are going to generate a force vector that passes through the nasomaxillary complex stimulating the circumaxillary sutures. In the lower arch one mini plate is placed on each side of the anterior region of the mandible between the right and left permanent lateral incisor and permanent canine. Fixation of the plates is achieved with three mini implants for the maxilla and two for the mandible. In order to perform a correct positioning of the lower plates it must be to certain that the canine has already erupted so as to prevent any damage when inserting the mini implant (Figure 1). One should wait 2 to 3 weeks for the process of tissue healing and afterwards, apply orthopedic forces.10

Figure 1.

Modification of temporary anchorage devices (TADs).

(Taken from: «Three-dimensional Analysis of Maxillary Protraction with Intermaxillary Elastics to Miniplates». Heymann, 2010).


The orthopedic protocol mentions that after three weeks one must apply intermaxillary elastics on each side with a class III force vector, which will move the maxilla forward and downwards and the mandible backwards and upwards (Figure 2). The initial elastics must exert a force of 150g on each side and after the first month it will increase to 250 grams with the same vector. To determine the force the patient must be at maximum intercuspation. The duration of orthopedic traction is 12.5 months with a range of 9 to 14 months of 24 hour use. An acrylic plate or placement of resin stops to increase vertical dimension and achieve overjet might also be used. The orthodontist will determine the ideal time to remove the elastics, usually upon achieving a positive overjet.9

Figure 2.

Use of class III vector intermaxillary elastics.

(Taken from: «Three-dimensional Analysis of Maxillary Protraction with Intermaxillary Elastics to Miniplates». Heymann, 2010).


To perform an accurate positioning of the plates a cone beam CT scan (CBCT) must be used for detecting the most calcified areas of the zygomatic process of the maxilla for proper mechanical retention of the mini implants. The best plate stability is achieved in patients of at least 11 years of age. Additionally, the use of CBCT may be useful to assess maxillary advancement in this kind of treatment before (T1) and a year after setup of orthopedic mechanics (T2), with the aid of super impositions of three-dimensional images and evaluating the actual progress of maxillary protraction (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

CBCT superimposition at T1 and T2.

(Taken from: «Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates». Heymann, 2010).


CBCT images must assess the following anatomical regions:

  • 1)

    Anterior region of the maxilla (point A)

  • 2)

    Zygomatic process of the maxilla

  • 3)

    Most anterior region of the mandible (pogonion)

  • 4)

    Anterior and posterior surface of the condyles

  • 5)

    Lower ridge of the mandible

  • 6)

    Glenoid fossa

  • 7)

    Soft tissues11

It has been clinically proven that the continuous forces exerted by the intraoral intermaxillary elastics over TADS in skeletal class III patients have better results than the use of intermittent forces of extraoral elastics with the facemask.12

Generally patients who are skeletal class III with an antero-posterior deficiency of the maxilla lack space for canine eruption, that is why once overjet is achieved molar and premolar distalization movements may be perform to obtain space and thus position the canines in the arch (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

A. Class III intermaxillary elastics; B. bite plane to achieve overjet; C-E. distalization mechanics; F. post-treatment.

(Taken from: «Growth modification of the face: A current perspective with emphasis on class III treatment». De Clerk, 2015).


Orthopedic procedures with the use of skeletal anchorage in growing patients offers major advantages regarding aesthetics, function and long term stability. The use of intermaxillary elastics improves facial and skeletal relations in addition to diminishing the effects that cause dentoalveolar relapse. In some cases the implementation of this technique may be sufficient to avoid orthognathic surgery in the future or at least reduce the severity of the surgical correction after the patient has completed growth. Growing patients who undergo this procedure easily adapt to the aesthetic changes that are gradually manifested unlike orthognathic surgery post-surgical changes which occur almost immediately.

A. Enacar, B. Giray, M. Pehlivanoglu, H. Iplikcioglu.
Facemask therapy with rigid anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and severe oligodontia.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 123 (2003), pp. 571-577
R.W. Gallagher, F. Miranda, P.H. Buschang.
Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 113 (1998), pp. 612-619
P.V. Westwood, J.A. McNamara Jr., T. Baccetti, L. Franchi, D.M. Sarver.
Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 123 (2003), pp. 306-320
A.P. Wells, D.M. Sarver, W.R. Proffit.
Long-term efficacy of reverse pull headgear therapy.
Angle Orthod., 76 (2006), pp. 915-922
M.A. Cornelis, N.R. Scheffler, H.J. De Clerck, J.F. Tulloch, C.N. Behets.
Systematic review of the experimental use of temporary skeletal anchorage devices in orthodontics.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 131 (2007), pp. 52-58
V.G. Kokich, P.A. Shapiro, R.J. Oswald, L. Koskinen-Mottelt, S.K. Clarren.
Ankylosed teeth as abutments for maxillary protraction. A case report.
Am J Orthod., 88 (1985), pp. 303-307
W.M. Smalley, P.A. Shapiro, T.H. Hohl, V.G. Kokich, P. Brånemark.
Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 94 (1988), pp. 285-295
S.L. Singer, P.J. Henry, I. Rosenberg.
Osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to face mask therapy: a case report.
H.J. De Clerck, W.R. Proffit.
Growth modification of the face: A current perspective with emphasis on Class III treatment.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 148 (2015), pp. 37-46
M.A. Cornelis, N.R. Scheffler, P. Mahy, S. Siciliano, H.J. De Clerck, J.F. Tulloch.
Modified miniplates for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: placement and removal surgeries.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg., 66 (2008), pp. 1439-1445
G.C. Heymann, L. Cevidanes, M. Cornelis, H.J. De Clerck, J.F. Tulloch.
Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 137 (2010), pp. 274-284
S.S. Liu, H.M. Kyung, P.H. Buschang.
Continuous forces are more effective than intermittent forces in expanding sutures.
Eur J Orthod., 32 (2010), pp. 371-380

This article can be read in its full version in the following page: http://www.medigraphic.com/ortodoncia

Resident of the Orthodontics Specialty.

Master in Science. Head of the Orthodontics Specialty.

Copyright © 2016. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Odontología
Opciones de artículo
es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.