Picture this: a young dental student staring at a microscope, trying to figure out why her physiology textbook looks more like a foreign language manual than a path to making people smile. Enter Dr. Anukrati Srivastava—the woman who took that confusion, added a sprinkle of stubbornness, a dash of curiosity, and bam!—turned it into a dental career that makes patients beam and teachers proud. With an All India Rank of 97, a master’s degree, and an obsession with magnification and illumination, she’s not just treating teeth; she’s rewriting the rulebook on what it means to be a dentist who actually cares.

Think of her as the stand-up comedian of dentistry—only instead of punchlines, she delivers precision, patience, and those little “aha!” moments that make you go, “Wow, I never knew dental school could be like this.”

---

1) Can you share how your path in the dental profession began and the key milestones that shaped it?

My journey in dentistry began with a bit of resistance. During the first year, I wasn’t particularly interested, as the subjects like physiology and biochemistry seemed far removed from clinical dentistry. It didn’t feel relevant to what I wanted to do—treat patients and create smiles.

Everything changed in the third year when I joined a private clinic to experience dentistry beyond textbooks. That hands-on exposure taught me that dentistry is not just about treating teeth—it’s about patience, communication, and understanding the financial and emotional aspects of patient care.

A major milestone during my internship was preparing for the pre-PG exam. I began studying not just to pass, but to truly understand subjects and connect concepts. With guidance from exceptional teachers across India, patience, and consistent effort, I achieved AIR 97 and completed my master’s—a challenging journey that brought immense satisfaction.

Another pivotal moment came when I committed to performing all my cases under proper isolation, using magnification and illumination. I believe every dental student should use at least 3.5X magnification. Without it, you miss details that are crucial for becoming a better dentist.

---

2) What inspires you to stay passionate and committed to dentistry, even during challenging times?

I was fortunate to complete my bachelor’s and master’s at a prestigious institution—Govt. Dental College, Jaipur—with faculty who truly inspired me. Watching teachers work, understanding their thought process, and seeing their dedication to patients—not for money but for the joy of delivering excellent care—motivated me to push myself. Their example has been my anchor during challenging times, reminding me to always give my best.

---

3) Who is your role model in the dental field, and how has this person influenced your approach to patient care, academics, or professional growth?

While I’ve learned from many, I must mention Dr. Lalit Likhiyani and Dr. Manoj Aggarwal. They taught me to strive to be a better person every day and to deliver dentistry better than I did yesterday. During my student life, I often thought, “What would they say if they saw this?”—a question that drove me to excellence.

Academically, they never gave me straight answers. Instead, they asked more questions, encouraging me to explore literature, dig into articles, and develop reasoning. This approach instilled in me a love for learning and a habit of critical thinking.

---

4) Could you discuss the strategies you use to manage academic responsibilities alongside your personal interests or hobbies?

Balancing academics, clinical responsibilities, and personal life has been challenging. I realized early on the importance of prioritizing personal life. Some rules I follow include:

• No work calls after 7 PM.
• Weekly days off with my husband, who is also an orthodontist, with no appointments.
• Allocating time for House of Endodontics in my calendar.
• Maintaining an afternoon nap that I never compromise.

I also make time for painting, gardening with a cup of coffee, and long drives—simple joys that help me recharge. Sticking to a routine has been key to maintaining balance.

---

5) What advice would you give to current dental students and aspiring dentists?

Yes, dentistry is challenging. Yes, it requires patience and perseverance. Yes, you will be self-critical about your cases. But the satisfaction of growing, learning, and creating beautiful smiles makes it all worthwhile. Stay curious, embrace mentorship, and never stop improving.

---

Conclusion:

So, what’s the takeaway from Dr. Anukrati Srivastava’s story? Simple. Dentistry is tough, exams are tougher, and yes, sometimes your coffee might get cold while you’re deep in a case. But passion, perseverance, and a touch of sass can turn all that chaos into something magical.

She’s living proof that you can love what you do, learn endlessly, and still have time to sip your coffee, paint a masterpiece, or take a Sunday drive. If dental students remember one thing from her journey, let it be this: don’t just aim to fix teeth—aim to shine brighter than the overhead lamp in your operatory. And maybe, just maybe, make it look effortless while you’re at it.

Why this topic matters clinically

Every orthodontic student reaches a moment in clinic where a 9-year-old with Class II malocclusion is sitting in the chair—and the faculty asks:

“So… headgear or functional appliance?”

The confusion is understandable. One appliance pulls the maxilla back, the other pushes the mandible forward.
But do they actually produce different outcomes?

Evidence says something interesting:
👉 They reach the same destination—using different roads.

Let’s break this down logically.

The Clinical Question

Are headgears and functional appliances equally effective in correcting Class II malocclusions in children before comprehensive treatment?

Short answer

✅ Yes.
Both appliances produce similar overall Class II correction, especially in terms of ANB reduction and overjet correction.

Evidence at a Glance

• 5 prospective randomized clinical trials
• Children aged 7–10 years
• Phase I treatment only (no fixed appliances)
• Compared headgear vs functional appliances vs controls

📚 Databases used: PubMed & Cochrane Library

Study	N	Age	Duration	Appliances	Key Design
Jakobsson (1990)	57	8.5 yr	18 mo	Cervical headgear vs Andresen activator vs control	Random, all Class II
Tulloch (1998)	166	9.4 yr	15 mo	Straight-pull headgear vs mod. Bionator vs control	OJ >7 mm, randomized
Keeling (1990s)	249	9.5 yr	To Class I or 2 yr	Headgear + biteplate vs Bionator vs control	MPA-based headgear type
Ghafari (1998)	63	7-13 yr	To Phase II	Straight-pull headgear vs FR-II	No control, ANB ≥4.5°
Final study (1990s)	90	10 yr	1.5-1.8 yr	Headgear/biteplate vs Bionator vs matched control	Bilateral >½ cusp distal

---

Skeletal Effects: Who does what?

Parameter	Headgear	Functional Appliance
SNA	↓ (0.5–3°)	Minimal change
SNB	No significant change	↑ (0.6–2°)
ANB	↓ ≈ 1°	↓ ≈ 1°
Mandibular length	Minimal / inconsistent	Minimal to slight increase

---

Dental Effects: The Real Workhorses

Dental Change	Headgear	Functional Appliance
Maxillary molars	Distalized (up to 3–3.7 mm)	Minimal / mesial
Mandibular molars	Minimal	Mesial (≈3 mm)
Maxillary incisors	Uprighting	Uprighting
Mandibular incisors	Uprighting	Proclination
Overjet reduction	Moderate (~1.5 mm)	Large (≈ 4 mm total)

---

Vertical Effects: Should we worry?

• Headgear: Slight increase in SN–MP angle
• Functional appliances: Mostly neutral, occasionally slight decrease

📌 Clinically mild and usually not decisive

---

What about Headgear + Bite Plate?

🧠 Important exam insight

• Bite plate does NOT add additional skeletal benefit
• ANB, SNA, SNB changes are similar to headgear alone
• Maxillary molar distalization remains unchanged

➡️ Bite plate = optional, not essential

---

So… Are They Equally Effective?

✅ Yes—because:

• Both reduce ANB by ~1°
• Both reduce overjet
• Both correct Class II molar relationship

❌ But they are NOT identical:

• Headgear = skeletal restraint of maxilla
• Functional appliances = dental compensation + mandibular positioning

Study	Appliance	SNA/A-pt	SNB/B-pt	ANB	Max Molar	Mand Molar	Overjet
Jakobsson	Headgear	-1.6 mm	No Δ	~1°	-3.7 mm distal	No report	~1.5 mm ↓
Jakobsson	Activator	-0.7 mm	No Δ	~1°	-1.2 mm distal	No report	~4 mm ↓ (LI proc)
Tulloch	Headgear	-0.9°/yr	+0.6 mm/yr	-1°/yr	NR	NR	-1.4 mm/yr
Tulloch	Bionator	No Δ	+1.3 mm/yr (+0.6°/yr)	-1°/yr	NR	NR	-2.5 mm/yr
Keeling	Headgear/BP	-0.5°	0.2°	-0.7°	Distal	Mesial > ctrl	~2-3 mm ↓
Keeling	Bionator	+0.5°	+1.4°	-0.9°	NR	Mesial > ctrl	~2-3 mm ↓
Ghafari	Headgear	-3°	Similar	-1.3° > FR-II	+3 mm neutro	Similar	Moderate ↓
Ghafari	FR-II	+0.1°	+2 mm B-pt	Reduced	Less shift	Similar	Larger ↓
Final	Headgear/BP	-1°	No SNB Δ	-1°	-1.2 mm distal	+2.7 mm mesial	Moderate
Final	Bionator	No Δ	+0.8°	-1°	Slight mesial	+3.3 mm mesial	LI proc 4.2°

---

Final Take-Home Message (Highlight-worthy ✨)

Headgears and functional appliances are equally effective in early Class II correction in children. The difference lies not in how much correction occurs, but in how that correction is achieved—headgear acts mainly on the maxilla, while functional appliances rely largely on dentoalveolar changes and mandibular positioning.

Class III malocclusion is diagnostically easy to spot and frustratingly hard to treat. Parents see a negative overjet and come in early, but what you actually inherit is a complex mix of maxillary retrusion, mandibular excess, dentoalveolar compensation, and growth uncertainty. Functional Regulator‑3 (FR‑3) is one of the classic early‑treatment tools aimed at modifying growth in Class III children, introduced by Rolf Frankel in 1970 and designed to work not directly on teeth, but on the perioral and buccal soft tissues.

Levin, McNamara and co‑workers published a landmark retrospective controlled study in 2008 that, for the first time, followed an FR‑3 group and matched untreated Class III controls from pre‑puberty all the way past the pubertal spurt (about 9 years total). All FR‑3 patients were treated personally by Rolf Frankel, had good compliance, and wore the same appliance first full‑time (about 2.5 years), then part‑time (about 3 years) using his original protocol. For you as a student, that makes this study a practical “gold standard” for what FR‑3 can really do when the technique and compliance are not the problem

First, a Mental Reset: What FR-3 Is NOT

Before we discuss effects, let’s clear misconceptions:

❌ FR-3 does not stop mandibular growth
❌ FR-3 does not pull the maxilla forward like a facemask
❌ FR-3 does not “fix” all Class III cases

👉 FR-3 is not a force-delivery appliance
👉 It is a functional environment modifier

That distinction changes everything.

🔹 Components and Their Purpose

Component	Primary Function	Clinical Logic
Buccal shields	Remove cheek pressure	Allows transverse & sagittal maxillary development
Lip pads	Reduce upper lip pressure	Facilitates forward maxillary displacement
Lower labial wire	Controls mandibular incisors	Prevents excessive lingual tipping
Lingual support	Influences tongue posture	Improves oral seal & functional balance

One of the biggest mistakes students make with functional appliances is assuming that all changes seen during treatment are permanent.
FR-3 is a perfect example of why time-segmented thinking (T1–T2 vs T2–T3) matters.

TIME POINTS (Keep these fixed in your head)

Time Point	Meaning
T1	Start of FR-3 treatment
T2	End of full-time wear (~2.5 years)
T3	Long-term follow-up after puberty (≈9 years from T1)

PART 1: Short-Term Effects (T1 → T2)

What changes while the child wears FR-3 full-time

Between T1 and T2, FR-3 patients were compared with untreated Class III controls. This comparison is crucial—because growth alone can fool you.

---

1. Maxilla: Real Growth + Modest Forward Positioning

📌 Key Finding

The maxilla does not just “look better”—it actually grows more.

Parameter	FR-3 Patients	Controls	Net FR-3 Advantage
Effective midfacial length (Co–A)	↑ ~4.0 mm	↑ ~2.7 mm	+1.3 mm
SNA	↑ ~1.3°	Minimal change	Significant
A-point ⟂ Nasion	↑ ~0.8 mm	Minimal	Significant

Interpretation (Think, don’t recite):

• The maxilla grows longer
• And is positioned slightly more anteriorly
• Beyond what would occur with normal growth

👉 This supports Fränkel’s original hypothesis:

Removing circumoral muscular pressure allows basal maxillary growth to express itself.

---

❓ Ponder This

If FR-3 only caused dental compensation, why would Co–A increase more than controls?

---

2. Mandible: Size Continues, Position Softens

📌 Key Reality Check

FR-3 does NOT inhibit mandibular length growth.

Parameter	Observation	Clinical Meaning
Total mandibular length (Co–Gn)	↑ in both groups	No growth restraint
Chin projection (Pg ⟂ Nasion)	Less forward than controls	Sagittal position moderated
Net effect	Positional, not dimensional	Mandible still grows

👉 The mandible grows, but its relationship to the cranial base becomes less aggressive.

---

❓ Ponder This

If Co–Gn increases normally, how does FR-3 still improve Class III?

(Hint: size ≠ facial balance)

---

3. Intermaxillary Relationships: Where Class III Softens

This is where clinicians feel success.

Parameter	FR-3	Controls	Net Effect
ANB	↑ ~1.1°	↓ ~1.0°	+2.1°
Wits appraisal	↑ ~2.1 mm	↑ ~0.6 mm	+2.7 mm
Maxillo-mandibular differential (Co–Gn − Co–A)	↓ ~1.4 mm	↑ ~3.8 mm	≈2.4 mm improvement

👉 Clinically:
The jaws become less disharmonious, even though neither jaw stops growing.

---

4. Vertical Dimension: A Common Fear That Didn’t Materialize

Many assume:

Functional appliance = increased vertical dimension

Parameter	FR-3 vs Controls
FMA	No significant difference
Mandibular plane angle	Stable
Lower anterior facial height	No significant increase

📌 Important takeaway:
When properly fabricated and monitored, FR-3 does NOT automatically open the bite.

---

5. Dentoalveolar & Occlusal Effects (Short-Term)

Occlusal Outcomes

Parameter	FR-3	Controls	Net Gain
Overjet	↑ ~4.4 mm	↑ ~0.6 mm	~3.9 mm
Molar relationship	↑ ~2.1 mm	↓ ~1.0 mm	~3.1 mm

Incisor Effects

Tooth	Change	Clinical Caution
Maxillary incisors	Mild proclination	Acceptable
Mandibular incisors	Retroclination (IMPA ↓)	Can fake success

⚠️ Wire positioning matters
If the lower labial wire is placed too high → excessive incisor retroclination → false skeletal improvement.

PART 2: Long-Term Effects (T2 → T3)

What survives the pubertal growth spurt

This is where many orthopedic protocols fail.

FR-3 behaves differently.

---

6. Maxilla: Advantage Continues

Maxillary Growth (Long-Term)

Period	Finding
T2 → T3	Co–A ↑ ~2.2 mm more than controls
T1 → T3	Co–A ends ~3.6 mm longer than controls

👉 This confirms true basal growth, not temporary displacement.

---

7. Mandible: Morphology Changes, Not Length

Mandibular Shape Changes (Long-Term)

Parameter	FR-3	Controls
Gonial angle	↓ ~6.9°	↓ ~3.3°
Mandibular plane angle	↓ ~2.2° more	Less change
Rotation pattern	Anterior morphogenetic rotation	Less pronounced

Interpretation

The mandible:

• Still grows
• But rotates forward and upward
• Reducing chin prominence without shortening the bone

This aligns with Lavergne & Gasson’s morphogenetic rotation concept.

---

8. Intermaxillary Relationships: Maintained, Not Lost

Long-Term Skeletal Balance

Parameter (T1 → T3)	Net FR-3 Advantage
ANB	~+2.8°
Wits	~+5 mm
Maxillo-mandibular differential	~4 mm more favorable

👉 No dramatic “catch-up Class III” despite mandibular growth.

---

9. Occlusion: Does It Relapse?

Long-Term Occlusal Outcome

Parameter	FR-3	Controls
Final overjet	~+1.5 mm	~−0.5 mm
Molar relationship	Near Class I	Full-cusp Class III
Stability	High	Progressive worsening

📌 Unlike some facemask protocols, there was no sudden snap-back.

---

PART 3

FR-3 vs RME + Facemask (Conceptual Comparison)

Feature	FR-3	RME + Facemask
Maxillary length gain	Greater (≈3.6 mm)	Moderate (≈1.6 mm)
Mandibular growth control	Minimal	More evident
Wear duration	Very long	Short
Force philosophy	Functional / soft-tissue	Orthopedic force
Technique sensitivity	High	Moderate
Compliance demand	Long-term	Short-term

---

How to Think FR-3 in Clinic (Mental Checklist)

1. Is maxillary deficiency real and measurable?
   (Co–A, SNA, A-perp)
2. Is timing ideal?
   (Early mixed dentition, CS1–CS2)
3. Can the family commit to long-term wear?
   (2.5 years full-time + ~3 years part-time)
4. Are skeletal and dental effects being monitored separately?
5. What is your exit strategy if mandibular growth dominates?

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS (HIGH‑YIELD)

Feature	Pseudo‑Class III	True Class III
Skeletal base	Class I / mild III	Skeletal III
Functional shift	Present	Absent
Profile at rest	Straight	Concave
Upper incisors	Retroclined	Proclined
Lower incisors	Normal	Retroclined

ETIOLOGY (REMEMBER: D‑F‑S)

Dental – ectopic maxillary incisors, premature loss of deciduous molars
Functional – tongue posture, neuromuscular reflex, airway issues
Skeletal – minor transverse maxillary deficiency

WHEN TO TREAT?

• Ideal age: 6–9 years (mixed dentition)
• Early intervention often requested due to aesthetic concerns
• Some clinicians delay due to: • Behavioural issues in young children
  • Risk of relapse during transitional dentition

TIMING CONTROVERSY (EXAM FAVORITE)

• Deciduous anterior crossbite may occasionally self‑correct
• Many prefer to wait till permanent maxillary incisors erupt
• White’s recommendation: intervene in mixed dentition after maxillary & mandibular incisors erupt

WHY TREAT EARLY? (MIXED DENTITION BENEFITS)

✔ Prevents unfavourable skeletal growth adaptations
✔ Reduces risk of functional posterior crossbite
✔ Prevents parafunctional habits (bruxism)
✔ Creates space for canine eruption (by correcting retroclined maxillary incisors)
✔ Prevents periodontal trauma to mandibular incisors

TREATMENT OPTIONS (CASE‑BASED)

Fixed (Minimal Compliance)
• Modified Quad Helix ± anterior arms
• Posterior bite planes / blocks

Functional (Compliance Dependent)
• Balters’ Bionator III
– Construction bite in CR
– Vertical opening: 3–4 mm
– Wear: ~14–16 hrs/day

When you begin the leveling and aligning stage in fixed orthodontic treatment, one challenge always lurks around the corner—upper anterior teeth love to tip forward. This is especially true with preadjusted edgewise appliances because of the built-in tip in the brackets.

To solve this, McLaughlin and Bennett introduced something brilliantly simple: the laceback ligature. The idea was elegant—use a figure-eight stainless-steel ligature from the molar to the canine to prevent incisor flaring and apply light distalizing forces on the canine.

But the clinical question is:
👉 Are laceback ligatures actually effective?
👉 And how do they compare to something stronger, like NiTi closed coil springs?

A controlled clinical study by Melih Sueri and Tamer Turk (Angle Orthodontist, 2006) provides the answers—and some surprises.

1. PURPOSE OF LACEBACK LIGATURES

• Prevent forward tipping of upper anterior teeth during leveling.
• Apply a light, interrupted distalizing force on canines.
• Provide controlled movement with minimal anchorage loss.

2. FORCE APPLICATION

Laceback Ligature

• Material: 0.010″ stainless steel ligature wire
• From first molar → canine
• Re-tighten at every visit
• Force type: interrupted / light

NiTi Closed Coil Spring

• Material: Superelastic NiTi
• Force: 150 g
• From first molar → canine
• Reactivate monthly
• Force type: continuous

3. CLINICAL EFFECTS

Canine Movement

Parameter	Laceback	NiTi Coil Spring
Distal movement	~1.67 mm	~4.07 mm
Distal tipping	4.5°	11.6°
Rotation	2.7° distobuccal	7.8° distopalatal
Movement rate	0.66 mm/month	1.61 mm/month

🔎 Interpretation:

• Lacebacks = Slower but more controlled movement
• NiTi coil springs = Faster, less controlled, more tipping & rotation

4. MOLAR MOVEMENT (Anchorage Loss)

Parameter	Laceback	NiTi Coil Spring
Mesial movement	0.70 mm	1.93 mm
Mesial tipping	3.9°	3.1°

🔎 Interpretation:

• Lacebacks cause significantly less anchorage loss.

5. INCISOR EFFECTS

• Upper incisors show retroclination and posterior movement with both methods due to overall anterior segment retraction forces.

WHEN TO USE WHAT?

✔ Use Laceback Ligatures When:

• You want maximum anchorage control
• You’re in the leveling & aligning stage
• Controlling canine tipping/rotation is critical
• Light, intermittent forces are preferred

✔ Use NiTi Closed Coil Springs When:

• You need faster canine retraction
• Anchorage can be reinforced or is less critical
• Canine tipping is acceptable or planned

Final Thoughts

This study beautifully highlights a truth every orthodontist must embrace:
Success isn’t just about moving teeth—it’s about controlling how they move.

Lacebacks may look old-school, but they offer unmatched finesse during the initial phase of treatment. NiTi coils, on the other hand, are powerful tools when used at the right time.

Mastering when to use each one is a hallmark of an excellent clinician.

Class III malocclusion is one of those topics that every orthodontic student eventually dreads—complex etiology, unpredictable growth, and tough treatment calls, especially in adults.

But what if we told you that there is a systematic way to simplify treatment planning?

A classic study by Stellzig-Eisenhauer et al. gives us a powerful, evidence-based roadmap. This blog breaks it down into easy, clinic-ready points.

🔍 Why Class III in Adults Is So Challenging

• Growth is almost complete → no skeletal correction with ortho alone.
• Many patients show combined skeletal + dentoalveolar features.
• Borderline cases make it hard to decide between:
  • ✔️ camouflage orthodontics (non-surgical)
  • ✔️ orthognathic surgery with orthodontics

The BIG Q: How do we objectively decide?

HIGH-YIELD CEPH PARAMETERS

A. Primary Predictor

Wits Appraisal (MOST RELIABLE)

• −1 to −5 mm → Often orthodontic (camouflage)
• < −7 mm → Borderline
• ≤ −10 mm → Usually surgical

---

B. Other Key Predictors (Discriminant Model)

Variable	Trend	Interpretation
S–N Length	↓ shorter	Increased likelihood of surgery
M/M Ratio (Maxilla/Mandible)	↓ low	Mandibular excess or maxillary deficiency → surgery
Lower Gonial Angle	↑ large	Vertical growth pattern → challenging to camouflage

---

3️⃣ NON-SURGICAL (ORTHODONTIC) CANDIDATES

Likely treatable with camouflage if:
✔ Wits > −6 mm
✔ Acceptable facial esthetics
✔ Mild–moderate skeletal discrepancy
✔ Good incisor inclinations possible (no excessive decomp needed)
✔ No significant vertical maxillary deficiency
✔ Patient prefers non-surgical path

Common Strategies:

• Class III elastics
• Lower incisor retraction (limits apply)
• Upper expansion/advancement via dentoalveolar mechanics
• Mini-screws for camouflage anchorage

---

4️⃣ SURGICAL CANDIDATES

Recommend ortho + orthognathic surgery when:
✔ Wits ≤ −8 to −10 mm
✔ Severe skeletal discrepancy (maxillary deficiency / mandibular prognathism)
✔ Large M/M discrepancy
✔ High lower gonial angle (vertical growers)
✔ Soft-tissue profile compromised
✔ Decompensation needed beyond safe limits
✔ Patient wants ideal esthetics & occlusion

Typical Surgical Options:

• Le Fort I Maxillary Advancement
• BSSO Mandibular Setback
• Bimaxillary Surgery (common)

---

5️⃣ BORDERLINE CASE CHECKLIST

Use these for “grey-zone” decisions:

• ☐ Dual bite? (Check CR vs CO)
• ☐ Incisor decompensation possible without harming periodontium?
• ☐ How much soft tissue improvement expected?
• ☐ Stability concerns? (high angle, open bite tendency)
• ☐ Patient esthetic expectations?
• ☐ Realistic with camouflage forces?

If ≥ 3 boxes checked → lean toward surgery.

---

6️⃣ MANDATORY CLINICAL EXAM ELEMENTS

• Check for functional shift
• Evaluate soft-tissue profile (nasolabial angle, chin, lip support)
• Assess transverse discrepancies
• Evaluate vertical dimension
• Understand patient desires (esthetic vs non-surgical preference)

---

7️⃣ RED FLAGS FOR CAMOUFLAGE

❌ Excessive lower incisor retroclination needed
❌ Gingival recession risk (thin biotype)
❌ Severe negative overjet > −6 mm
❌ Poor soft tissue esthetics (protrusive chin)
❌ Vertical dysplasia

---

8️⃣ RAPID SUMMARY

ORTHO ONLY = Mild skeletal discrepancy + Acceptable esthetics + Wits > −6 mm
SURGERY = Severe skeletal Class III + Esthetic disharmony + Wits < −10 mm
BORDERLINE = Depends on soft tissue, decomp needs, patient expectations

---

🦷💭 “Open Bite Correction Always Relapses… Right?”

Think again.

For decades, orthodontists have feared the words “open bite relapse.”
We’ve all seen those post-surgical cases where the overbite slowly flattens out again, leaving both the clinician and the patient frustrated.

But recent evidence tells a more optimistic story.
We looked at three landmark studies that prove surgical open bite correction can, in fact, stay stable long-term — if planned and executed correctly.

Let’s break it down 👇

🧠 Why Does Open Bite Relapse Happen?

Open bites often involve vertical skeletal discrepancies, soft-tissue imbalances, and habit-related influences (like tongue thrust or mouth breathing).
Even after successful closure, relapse can creep in because of:

• Posterior mandibular rotation post-surgery
• Muscle and condylar adaptation
• Incomplete control of incisor inclination
• Prolonged vertical elastics or residual tongue posture

Understanding these helps us choose treatment options that offer the best long-term stability.

🔍 What Does the Evidence Show?

🔹 1. Bimaxillary Surgery: Fischer et al., 2000 (EJO)

This study followed 58 patients who underwent Le Fort I osteotomy + Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy (BSSO) to correct open bite and mandibular retrognathism.

🩺 Findings after 2 years:

• The maxilla stayed stable.
• The mandible rotated back by only 1.4°, showing mild skeletal relapse.
• 17 patients developed a small open bite again, mostly due to incisor proclination, not jaw rotation.
• The most stable results occurred in patients who had no post-op MMF (maxillomandibular fixation) — early mobilization helped muscles adapt better.

💡 Take-home:
Rigid fixation + early mobilization = better stability.

---

🔹 2. Mandibular-Only Surgery: Fontes et al., 2012 (AJODO)

This study challenged the belief that we must operate on the maxilla for every open bite case.
It followed 31 patients treated with BSSO and closing mandibular rotation only (no maxillary impaction).

📊 Results after 4.5 years:

• Initial open bite: –2.6 mm
• Surgical correction: +3.7° closing rotation of mandible
• Long-term: 90% maintained positive overlap!
• Even though about 60% of the rotation was lost, only 3 patients relapsed to zero overbite.

💡 Take-home:
For mild-to-moderate skeletal open bites, mandibular-only surgery can be predictably stable and avoids unwanted soft-tissue changes (like widened nasal base or flattened upper lip).

---

3️⃣ Surgical vs. Nonsurgical Approaches – What’s More Stable?

Greenlee et al., 2011 — The Meta-Analysis That Ties It Together

This systematic review pooled data from 21 studies on open bite correction — both surgical and nonsurgical.

📈 The big picture:

• Surgical treatments: ~82% stability (positive overbite ≥ 1 year post-op)
• Nonsurgical treatments: ~75% stability
• Average relapse in overbite: < 0.5 mm over 3–4 years

💡 Take-home:
Both surgical and orthodontic approaches can be stable when case selection, fixation, and retention are well managed.

⚙️ Clinical Insights for Students

Focus Area	Key Point for Practice
Case selection	Choose surgical correction for true skeletal AOB with steep mandibular plane angles.
Fixation method	Rigid internal fixation (plates/screws) > wire fixation.
Incisor control	Avoid proclination of upper/lower incisors post-surgery.
MMF duration	Short or no MMF enhances functional recovery and stability.
Post-op care	Encourage physiotherapy and early functional movement.
Retention	Prolonged retention and habit control are essential to prevent vertical relapse.

Parameter	Pretreatment	Post-Surgery	Long-term Follow-up	Change/Relapse
Mean open bite (BSSO)	–2.6 mm	+1.4 mm	+1.0 mm	0.4 mm relapse
Mandibular rotation	+3.7° closing	–2.2° reopening (4.5 yrs)	60% rotation loss	Clinically stable outcome
Bimaxillary (Fischer et al.)	–0.9 mm	+2.2 mm	+0.8 mm	~1.4° mandibular reopening
Pooled (Meta-analysis)	–2.8 mm	+11.6 mm	+10.3 mm	82% maintained positive OB

References:

1. Fischer K, von Konow L, Brattström V. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:711–718.
2. Fontes AM, et al. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142:792–800.
3. Greenlee GM, et al. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:154–169.

---

🦷 Clinical-Oriented MCQs: Anterior Open Bite Stability After Surgery

---

1.

A 25-year-old female underwent bimaxillary surgery (Le Fort I impaction and BSSO) for anterior open bite. Two years later, her cephalometric evaluation shows a 1.4° posterior rotation of the mandible.
What is the most likely reason for this relapse?

A. Condylar sag during fixation
B. Maxillary relapse
C. Incisor proclination and dentoalveolar compensation
D. Nasal soft-tissue tension

✅ Answer: C. Incisor proclination and dentoalveolar compensation
🩺 Explanation: Fischer et al. (2000) reported that the mild relapse seen in 17/58 patients was primarily due to dental changes (incisor proclination), not skeletal instability. 

---

2.

Which fixation method is most strongly associated with long-term stability in open bite surgery?

A. Wire osteosynthesis
B. Rigid internal fixation using plates and monocortical screws
C. Intermaxillary fixation for 8 weeks
D. External pin fixation

✅ Answer: B. Rigid internal fixation using plates and monocortical screws
🩺 Explanation: Rigid fixation provides superior skeletal stability and minimizes posterior mandibular rotation. (Fischer et al., 2000; Fontes et al., 2012) 

---

3.

In Fontes et al. (2012), which surgical technique was assessed for its long-term stability in anterior open bite correction?

A. Le Fort I impaction of the maxilla
B. Bimaxillary osteotomy
C. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with closing rotation of the mandible
D. Segmental maxillary osteotomy

✅ Answer: C. Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with closing rotation of the mandible
🩺 Explanation: The study specifically evaluated BSSO with rigid internal fixation and found 90% of patients maintained a positive overbite 4.5 years post-treatment. 

---

4.

What was the long-term success rate (positive overbite ≥1 year post-op) for surgical open bite treatment according to Greenlee et al. (2011)?

A. 60%
B. 70%
C. 82%
D. 90%

✅ Answer: C. 82%
🩺 Explanation: The meta-analysis reported an 82% success rate for surgical interventions and 75% for nonsurgical treatment in maintaining positive overbite. 

---

5.

During open bite correction, which factor most increases the risk of relapse due to soft tissue and muscular tension?

A. Steep mandibular plane angle
B. Reduced condylar height
C. Excessive mandibular closing rotation (>4°)
D. Small gonial angle

✅ Answer: C. Excessive mandibular closing rotation (>4°)
🩺 Explanation: Over-rotation increases muscular stretch and pterygoid tension, contributing to relapse (Fontes et al., 2012). 

---

6.

Which postoperative protocol demonstrated the most favorable stability outcomes in bimaxillary surgery cases?

A. 8-week maxillomandibular fixation
B. 1–3 weeks of MMF
C. No MMF with early mobilization
D. Rigid fixation followed by elastic traction

✅ Answer: C. No MMF with early mobilization
🩺 Explanation: Fischer et al. (2000) found the most stable overbite in patients without MMF, suggesting early mobilization promotes muscle adaptation and healing. 

---

7.

In mandibular-only surgery for open bite, approximately what percentage of surgical closing rotation is typically lost long-term?

A. 10%
B. 30%
C. 60%
D. 80%

✅ Answer: C. 60%
🩺 Explanation: Fontes et al. (2012) reported that about 60% of the mandibular closing rotation achieved at surgery was lost, yet functional overlap was maintained. 

---

8.

Which cephalometric parameter was significantly correlated with open bite relapse post-surgery?

A. ANB angle
B. SN–ML angle (mandibular plane angle)
C. U1–L1 interincisal angle
D. SNA angle

✅ Answer: B. SN–ML angle
🩺 Explanation: Increased mandibular plane angles are associated with vertical skeletal patterns that predispose to relapse (Fischer et al., 2000). 

---

9.

Why might mandibular-only BSSO be preferred over maxillary impaction surgery in some open bite cases?

A. It allows greater anterior movement of the maxilla
B. It produces fewer unfavorable nasal and upper lip changes
C. It reduces operation time by half
D. It eliminates the need for orthodontic finishing

✅ Answer: B. It produces fewer unfavorable nasal and upper lip changes
🩺 Explanation: Fontes et al. (2012) noted mandibular-only correction avoids side effects like nasal widening, upper lip thinning, and excessive gingival display. 

---

10.

Which of the following best summarizes the long-term evidence on open bite surgical stability?

A. Relapse is inevitable due to vertical muscle pull.
B. Only bimaxillary surgery yields stable results.
C. Both surgical and nonsurgical approaches show >75% long-term stability.
D. Stability depends only on orthodontic retention.

✅ Answer: C. Both surgical and nonsurgical approaches show >75% long-term stability.
🩺 Explanation: Greenlee et al. (2011) meta-analysis found 82% stability for surgical and 75% for nonsurgical corrections at ≥1-year follow-up. 

---

1️⃣ Indications

• Skeletal anterior open bite (AOB) with:
  • Normal maxilla (no vertical maxillary excess)
  • Short mandibular ramus with normal condyles
  • Class II pattern requiring mandibular advancement
  • Retrogenia (benefits from chin prominence with mandibular rotation)
• Patients unsuitable for or wishing to avoid bimaxillary surgery

---

2️⃣ Contraindications / Exclusions

• Thumb sucking or other parafunctional habits
• Macroglossia or tongue thrust contributing to AOB
• Active TMJ disorders or condylar resorption

---

3️⃣ Surgical Technique Highlights

• Approach: Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (Obwegeser–Dal Pont/Hunsuck modification)
• Movement: Anticlockwise rotation of mandible to close AOB
• Fixation:
  • Rigid internal fixation — 3 × 2.0 mm bicortical positional screws per side (preferred)
  • Rigid fixation > wire > miniplates for stability
• Adjuncts: Extraction of third molars if required

---

4️⃣ Post-operative Findings

Time point	Mean Incisal Relationship
Immediate	Class I overbite 1–2 mm
1–2 weeks	Stable (1–2 mm)
12 months	10/12 stable Class I; 2 edge-to-edge; no AOB relapse

• Slight relapse (≈ 1 mm) in high-angle cases (> 43° max-mand angle).
• No condylar resorption reported.

---

5️⃣ Clinical Pearls

• Rigid fixation minimizes relapse.
• “Short split” modification → partial attachment of medial pterygoid → reduces relapse forces.
• Avoids morbidity of Le Fort I and bimaxillary procedures.
• Aesthetic gain: enhances chin prominence, may eliminate need for genioplasty.
• Best suited for selected cases — not all open bites.

---

6️⃣ Summary Recommendation

In carefully selected Class II AOB cases with normal maxilla and retrogenia,
mandibular anticlockwise rotation via MSSO offers stability comparable to maxillary impaction,
with reduced surgical morbidity.

1️⃣ Background

• Traditional approach: Maxillary impaction (LeFort I) was standard for open-bite correction due to instability of early mandibular-only approaches.
• Current advancement: Rigid internal fixation allows mandibular-only surgery using bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) with counterclockwise rotation of the distal segment.

---

2️⃣ Surgical Concept

Step	Description
Presurgical orthodontics	Level maxillary arch via maxillary incisor extrusion → creates level occlusal plane for mandibular autorotation.
Osteotomy	Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy with counterclockwise rotation of mandibular distal segment.
Fixation	Rigid internal fixation using 4 screws per side.
Objective	Establish positive overbite/overjet with stable posterior occlusion.

---

3️⃣ Indications

• Moderate anterior open bite (6–7 mm)
• Patients where maxillary impaction undesirable (esthetic concerns, nasal morphology)
• When cost or morbidity of double-jaw surgery is to be minimized

---

4️⃣ Advantages

✅ Single-jaw procedure → reduced cost & surgical morbidity
✅ Avoids nasal esthetic changes (widened alar base, nares exposure)
✅ Comparable stability to maxillary impaction
✅ Favorable mandibular plane flattening & improved chin–neck contour

---

5️⃣ Stability Evidence

Study	Surgery Type	Relapse (No incisal overlap long-term)
Lo & Shapiro (1998)	Maxillary impaction	25% (10/40) relapsed
Denison et al. (1989)	Maxillary impaction	21.4% (6/28) relapsed
Horwitz et al. (2004)	Mandibular BSSO (CCW rotation)	10% (2/20) relapsed at 4.5 years

➡ Mandibular osteotomy shows equal or better long-term stability.

---

6️⃣ Key Clinical Pearls

• Maintain stable incisor extrusion before surgery—no significant relapse noted.
• Ensure level occlusal plane before rotation to prevent posterior open bite.
• Rigid fixation is critical for stability.
• Post-op orthodontic detailing essential for final intercuspation.

---

7️⃣ Limitations / Cautions

⚠ Not suitable for severe open bites (>7–8 mm) or complex vertical discrepancies.
⚠ Limited long-term data; ongoing follow-up advised.
⚠ Requires precise planning of occlusal plane leveling to prevent over-rotation.

---

8️⃣ Clinical Summary

Mandibular counterclockwise rotation via BSSO is a viable and stable alternative to maxillary impaction for moderate anterior open-bite correction, providing both esthetic and economic benefits.