Achieving Predictable Class III Correction with Clear Aligner Therapy – Keys to Success

Clear aligner therapy has evolved significantly in recent years, particularly in its ability to address more complex cases like Class III malocclusions. While clear aligners offer many advantages for patients, achieving predictable Class III correction requires careful planning and understanding of this treatment modality’s potential and limitations.

Background on Class III Treatment

Class III malocclusions typically present as a sagittal discrepancy on molars and canines, often characterized by a prognathic mandible, retrusive maxilla, or a combination of both [1,2]. The prevalence of Class III malocclusion varies among ethnic groups, with higher rates reported in East Asian (16.59%) and Southeast Asian (15.69%) populations [3]. Treatment approaches generally fall into three categories: growth modification, dentoalveolar camouflage, or surgical intervention [4,5].

For growing patients, devices like the facemask or reverse pull headgear aim to stimulate maxillary growth and improve the skeletal relationship [2]. In non-growing patients, camouflage treatment often involves mandibular incisor retraction and/or maxillary incisor proclination to correct the dental relationship [6,7]. Class III correction has traditionally relied heavily on patient compliance with removable appliances or Class III elastics. More recently, clear aligner therapy has emerged as another option for treating Class III cases [8].

Clear Aligner Therapy for Class III Correction

Clear aligners can address Class III malocclusions through several mechanisms:

1. Maxillary arch expansion and proclination of maxillary incisors
2. Retraction and uprighting of mandibular incisors
3. Differential IPR to create overjet
4. Use of Class III elastics in conjunction with aligners
5. Controlled rotation of the occlusal plane using intermaxillary elastics and intra-arch mechanics

Studies have shown that clear aligners can effectively manage these tooth movements, although the efficacy may vary depending on the severity of the malocclusion and the specific movements required [9,10].

Opportunities and Limitations

Clear aligners offer several opportunities for Class III correction. They are removable, enhancing patient comfort and hygiene, making them preferable for many adult patients. The full occlusal coverage of aligners may provide better control of vertical dimension than other treatment modalities [11]. Clear aligner therapy allows for simultaneous arch expansion, incisor movements, and potential incorporation of Class III elastics [8].

However, there are limitations to consider. With aligners alone, achieving significant skeletal changes in non-growing patients remains challenging [12]. The amount of mandibular incisor retraction may be limited by the thickness of the alveolar housing [13]. Anchorage control during retraction of the lower dentition can be difficult, potentially leading to unwanted proclination of maxillary incisors [14].

Mechanism of Action and Occlusal Plane Changes

Class III elastics, often used with clear aligners, can have some effects on the occlusal plane. The mesial force on the upper arch can lead to a counterclockwise rotation of the maxillary occlusal plane with the molars’ extrusion in combination with intrusion and proclination of maxillary incisors, potentially improving underbite but also affecting smile aesthetics. The distal force on the lower arch can cause intrusion and retroclination of mandibular incisors [15].

The occlusal plane inclination plays a crucial role in Class III correction. Studies have shown that the OP-AB angle (angle between the occlusal plane and the A-B plane) is a significant parameter in distinguishing between Class III and Class I malocclusions, and it strongly correlates with vertical and horizontal growth directions [3]. Understanding these occlusal plane changes is essential for successful treatment planning and execution. Vertical control of the anterior, posterior, and occlusal plane can help manage challenging Class III malocclusions.

Keys to Success

Orthodontists should consider several key elements to achieve predictable Class III correction with clear aligners:

1. Realistic treatment planning is crucial, and overcorrection in the ClinCheck may be necessary, especially for mandibular incisor retraction [14].
2. Attachments on the tooth surface can improve the accuracy of tooth movements, particularly for retraction and rotation [9].
3. Regular monitoring of tooth movements and willingness to refine treatment as needed is essential for achieving desired outcomes [14].
4. Careful case selection is crucial, as mild to moderate Class III cases are more predictably treated with aligners than severe cases [1,8].
5. Be mindful of the potential for anterior bite opening during Class III correction by ensuring proper posterior support and management of the curve of Spee [15]. Although the rotation of the mandibular plane can be beneficial in a Class III malocclusion, vertical control of the dentition is crucial to managing any potential anterior bite opening.
6. In growing patients, consider incorporating features similar to functional appliances or using Class III elastics to potentially influence maxillary growth and improve skeletal relationships [2,8].

Skeletal and Dental Changes

Recent studies have provided insights into the range of skeletal and dental changes orthodontists can achieve with Class III camouflage treatment. Burns et al. [1] found that changes in mandibular incisor inclination ranged from -10° to 15° in treated patients, while maxillary incisor inclination changes ranged from -6° to 12°. These findings suggest that orthodontists can achieve a wide range of dental compensations to mask underlying skeletal discrepancies.

However, it’s important to note that camouflage treatment may not significantly improve the sagittal jaw relationship. The ANB angle may worsen due to disproportional growth of the maxilla and mandible [1]. The lack of significant sagittal jaw relationship underscores the importance of careful patient selection and realistic treatment planning.

Soft Tissue Considerations

Class III camouflage treatment can lead to significant improvements in facial profile. Burns et al. [1] reported greater increases in the angle of convexity in treated patients, indicating improved facial profiles. Additionally, they found greater increases in upper lip length in the treated group, corresponding to changes in the underlying hard tissues.

Long-term Stability and Periodontal Health

While short-term outcomes of Class III camouflage treatment with clear aligners can be favorable, long-term stability remains a concern. Continued mandibular growth after treatment can compromise the achieved results [16]. We should consider regular follow-up and potential retention strategies to maintain treatment outcomes.

Regarding periodontal health, Burns et al. [1] found no significant differences in the level of gingival attachment between treated and control groups. This study suggests that careful orthodontic movement, even in cases of substantial dental compensation, can be achieved without detrimental effects on the periodontium. However, long-term studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Conclusion

Clear aligner therapy offers a promising approach to Class III correction, particularly for mild to moderate cases. It requires a nuanced understanding of biomechanics, aligner capabilities, and individual patient factors. The discrepancy between predicted and achieved tooth movements highlights the importance of careful treatment planning and monitoring [14].

By incorporating the key elements discussed into treatment planning and execution, clinicians can enhance the predictability of Class III correction with clear aligners. However, it’s crucial to remember that in cases of severe skeletal discrepancies or patients with continued mandibular growth, orthodontic camouflage may not be sufficient, and surgical intervention may be necessary [16].

Proper diagnosis, realistic treatment objectives, and clear communication with patients about the possibilities and limitations of treatment are essential for successful outcomes. As clear aligner technology advances, staying current with the latest research and continuously refining clinical approaches will be vital to achieving optimal results for patients with Class III malocclusions.

References:

1. 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;137:9.e1-9.e13.

2. Ngan P, Moon W. Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(1):22-36.

3. Ardani IGAW, Wicaksono A, Hamid T. The Occlusal Plane Inclination Analysis for Determining Skeletal Class III Malocclusion Diagnosis. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:163-171.

4. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity. St Louis: Mosby; 2003.

5. Ellis E, McNamara JA. Components of adult Class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42:295-305.

6. Lin J, Gu Y. Preliminary investigation of nonsurgical treatment of severe skeletal Class III malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:401-10.

7. Sperry TP, Speidel TM, Isaacson RJ, Worms FW. The role of dental compensations in the orthodontic treatment of mandibular prognathism. Angle Orthod. 1977;47:293-9.

8. Ziere B, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2018;10:99-116.

9. Gu J, Tang JS, Skulski B, Fields HW Jr, Beck FM, Firestone AR, et al. Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(2):259-266.

10. Khosravi R, Cohanim B, Hujoel P, Daher S, Neal M, Liu W, et al. Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(4):691-699.e2.

11. Ravera S, Castroflorio T, Garino F, Daher S, Cugliari G, Deregibus A. Maxillary molar distalization with aligners in adult patients: a multicenter retrospective study. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:12.

12. Papadopoulos MA, Tarawneh F. The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: a comprehensive review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;103(5):e6-15.

13. Wehrbein H, Bauer W, Diedrich P. Mandibular incisors, alveolar bone, and symphysis after orthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(3):239-46.

14. Troy BA, Shanker S, Fields HW, Vig K, Johnston W. Comparison of incisor inclination in patients with Class III malocclusion treated with orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135:146.e1-9.

15. Jin-le L, Chen F, Chen S. Changes of occlusal plane inclination after orthodontic treatment in different dentoskeletal frames. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:41.

16. Johnston C, Burden D, Kennedy D, Harradine N, Stevenson M. Class III surgical-orthodontic treatment: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:300-9.