Objective: To compare the treatment effects between skeletal anchored facemask (SAFM) and tooth-borne facemask (TBFM) on different maturation stages and vertical skeletal patterns. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 28 patients who were treated with TBFM treatment and 19 patients who were treated with SAFM were reviewed. Cephalograms at the beginning and end of facemask application were obtained and assessed. Each treatment group was divided according to skeletal maturity and facial angle type. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney Utest was used for comparisons of maturity stage and vertical skeletal type between the treatment groups.Results: SAFM produced a significant increase in the anterior-posterior position of orbitale (SNOr) and A point (N. per. to A). The high mandibular plane angle group of SAFM revealed greater anterior movement than that of TBFM without opening of the mandibular plane. In the SAFM group, the angulation of the maxillary incisors was retroclined at CVM3 compared to CVM4. In the younger group (CVM3), SAFM showed greater changes in the variables of orbitale (2.909u) and maxillary length (5.818 mm), compared to TBFM. Conclusions: Compared with the TBFM group, the findings suggest significant advantages for the SAFM group for relative skeletal maturity and vertical skeletal pattern. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:628-633.)

Summary Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the results of skeletal anchorage (SAMP) and tooth- borne (TBMP) maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in growing skeletal Class III patients. Materials and methods Patients treated with maxillary protraction were selected and classified into two groups (SAMP: n = 19, mean age = 11.19 years; TBMP: n = 27, mean age = 11.21 years). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), after the maxillary protraction (T1), and after the fixed appliance treatment (T2) were analysed and all variables were statistically tested to find difference between the two groups. Results Compared to the TBMP, the SAMP showed significant forward growth of maxilla (Co-A point and SN-Orbitale) and improvement in intermaxillary relationship (ANB, AB to mandible plane, and APDI) after the overall treatment (T0–T2), with no significant sagittal changes in maxilla or mandible throughout the fixed appliance treatment (T1–T2). Limitations In maxillary protraction, effects of skeletal anchorage were retrospectively compared with those of dental anchorage, not with Class I or III control. Conclusions and implications After maxillary protraction, skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage did not cause significant differences in the residual growth of maxilla throughout the phase II treatment. Orthopaedic effects with skeletal anchorage showed appropriate stability in maxilla and intermaxillary relationship even after fixed appliance treatment.

No abstract