Soft tissue evaluation after maxillary protraction with RPE or with the ALT-RAMEC protocol : A controlled 3D study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate soft tissue changes following maxillary protraction with different expansion protocols using three-dimensional (3D) stereophotogrammetry. METHODS: Pretreatment (T0) and postprotraction (T1) stereophotogrammetry and lateral cephalometric images of skeletal class III patients were included in this retrospective study. In all, 32 patients were treated either with a combination of rapid palatal expansion and facemask (RPE/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.94 ± 0.68 years) or with alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction together with a facemask (Alt-RAMEC/FM; n = 16; mean age: 9.74 ± 1.35 years). As a control group 16 untreated patients were recruited (mean age: 9.46 ± 0.8 years). For superimpositioning of the 3D images taken at T0 and T1, the face was divided into defined regions and 3D and differences between the groups were evaluated using 3­matic software (Materialise Europe, Leuven, Belgium). Cephalometric analyses were also performed. RESULTS: While the increases in the cephalometric parameters SNA and ANB were significantly greater in the treatment groups, the value for SNB also increased in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the stereophotogrammetry analyses demonstrated that the mean changes in the RPE/FM and in the Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were significantly different for the midface compared to the control group (0.33 ± 0.26 mm, 0.3 ± 0.31 mm, 0.1 ± 0.18 mm). The maximum positive, negative, and mean changes were also significantly different between the treatment and control groups for the upper lip (p < 0.05). For the lower lip and the chin significant backward movements in the RPE/FM as well as in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group (-1.06 ± 1.26 mm, -0.68 ± 0.45 mm) were observed, while the control group (0.09 ± 0.53 mm) presented changes in the opposite direction. Regarding soft tissue changes, no significant differences were found between the RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups. CONCLUSION: Both treatment protocols improved the soft tissue profile due to a forward movement of the midface and the upper lip, and a backward movement of the lower lip and chin, compared to the control group.