Abstract
The treatment of skeletal and dental Class III malocclusions is a challenge for orthodontists, and one of the treatment alternatives for a non-growing patient is orthodontic camouflage treatment. Different approaches may result in different outcomes; therefore, a proper diagnosis and treatment plan are needed to avoid undesirable effects. In this case, a 21-year-old female patient presented with a skeletal Class III malocclusion, with a normal maxilla, prognathic mandible, moderate crowding, and an acceptable facial profile. The treatment modality for orthodontic camouflage treatment was a conventional orthodontic appliance with the extraction of mandibular first premolars to resolve crowding. At the end of the treatment, a Class I canine and incisor relationship was achieved while maintaining a Class III molar relationship. After 25 months of treatment, the patient had a more pleasant smile with improved functional occlusion.
References
1. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018; 23(6):40.e1-10.
2. Hardy DK, Cubas YP, Orellana MF. Prevalence of angle Class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol. 2012; 2(4):75-82.
3. Rabie ABM, Gu Y. Diagnostic criteria for pseudoclass III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 117(1):1-9.
4. Lewis BRK. Class III. In: Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, editors. An introduction to orthodontics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 137-50.
5. Wang RH, Shen HL. Camouflage orthodontic treatment for adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion and bilateral posterior crossbite. Taiwan J Orthod. 2017; 29(3):182-91.
6. Sakoda KL, Pinzan A, Cury SEN, BelliniPereira SA, Castillo AAD, Janson G. Class III malocclusion camouflage treatment in adults: A systematic review. J Dent Open Access. 2019; 1(1):2-12.
7. Araujo MTS, Squeff LR. Orthodontic camouflage as a treatment alternative for skeletal Class III. Dental Press J Orthod. 2021; 26(4):e21bbo4.
8. Eslami S, Faber J, Fateh A, Sheikholaemmeh F, Grassia V, Jamilian A. Treatment decision in adult patients with Class III malocclusion: surgery versus orthodontics. Prog Orthod. 2018; 19:28.
9. Yashwant AV, Rajasekaran UB, Xavier HR, James L, Joseph B. Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with anterior crossbite in adults: A case series. Int J Sci Study. 2019; 7(1):213-8.
10. Xiong X, Yu Y, Chen F. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthognathic surgery: A comparative analysis of long-term stability and satisfaction in moderate skeletal Class III. Open J Stomatol. 2013; 3:89-93.
11. Burns NR, Musich DR, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P. Class III camouflage treatment: what are the limits? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(1):9.e1-13.
12. Adam NI, Jowett A, Hodge T. Orthodontic conundrums part 2: Finishing cases to a Class III molar relationship. Orthod Update. 2021; 14(1):27-31.
13. Farret MMB, Farret MM, Farret AM. Strategies to finish orthodontic treatment with a Class III molar relationship: three patient reports. World J Orthod. 2009; 10(4):323-33.
14. Koya S, Mascarenhas R, Rahul RS, Nair JSA. Class III molar finish is a different treatment approach to correct an adolescent Class II patient using headgear, forsus, and lower arch extraction. APOS Trends Orthod. 2017; 7(5):242-7.
15. McIntyre GT. Treatment planning in class III malocclusion. Dent Update. 2004; 31(1):13-20.
Recommended Citation
Monika, F., & Widayati, R. Class III Malocclusion Camouflage Treatment Using a Conventional Orthodontic Appliance in a Non-Growing Patient. J Dent Indones. 2023;30(1): 48-51
