Table 1.
Cephlometric measurements, definitions and Vietnamese norm values (mean ± SD).
Fig 1.
Dentoskeletal and soft tissue measurements on cephalometric analysis.
CC, Center of cranium point; Ba, basion; N, nasion; Cp, condylion-posterior point; Pt, pterygoid; PtV, vertical articulare pterygoid line; Pr, Porion; Or, Orbitale; FH, Frankfort horizontal plane; Gn, gnathion; FA, facial axis; S, sella; A, A-point; Co, condylion-superior point; B, B-point; Xi, Xi point; Pm, protuberance menti; Pog, pogonion; Me, menton; OP, occlusal plane; MP, mandibular plane; FMA, Frankfort-mandibular plan angle; LFH, lower facial height; Wits, Wits appraisal; ANS, anterior nasal spine; PNS, posterior nasal spine; PP, palatal plane; U1, upper incisor tip; L1, lower incisor tip; IMPA, incisor mandibular plane angle; TVL, true vertical line; Pog’, pogonion soft tissue; Ls, labrale superius; Sn, subnasale.
Table 2.
Dentoskeletal changes before and after treatment in the MEAW group (n = 30).
Fig 2.
Representative patient treated with the MEAW technique.
(A–C) Pre-treatment: (A) Frontal (with and without smiling) and profile view; (B) Lateral cephalogram; (C) Intraoral view. (D–F) Post-treatment: (D) Frontal (with and without smiling) and profile view; (E) Lateral cephalogram; (F) Intraoral view.
Fig 3.
Aesthetic changes before and after treatment.
(A) Profile and frontal smiling views of a representative patient with skeletal class III malocclusion before and after treatment. (B) Profile and frontal smile aesthetic scores after treatment were evaluated using Likert scale (0-10). (C) Evaluation of aesthetic changes before and after treatment by laypersons and orthodontists. Data are presented as a bar chart. *p value <0.05; **p value <0.01 assessed by paired-sample t-test.
Table 3.
Comparison of post-treatment outcomes between MEAW and surgical groups.
Fig 4.
Changes in bimaxillary relationships after MEAW treatment and contributing impact factors.
(A) Outcome of anteroposterior relationship changes in MEAW treatment and surgical comparison groups in comparison with normative values. (B) Outcome of vertical relationship changes in MEAW treatment and surgical comparison groups in comparison with normative values. Data are presented as a bar chart. *p value <0.05; **p value <0.01; ***p value <0.001 assessed by one-sample t-test. (C) Pearson’s correlation between anteroposterior relationship changes and skeletal factors. Unit on color scale: correlation value R. *p value <0.05; **p value <0.01. A–NPog, convexity; Wits, Wits appraisal; LFH, lower facial height; FMA, Frankfort-mandibular plane angle; Norm, normative value; Cp–PtV, posterior cranial length; OP–XiPm, occlusal plane angle, SN–SGn, modified Y axis.
Table 4.
Multiple linear regression analysis for the change in the anteroposterior relationships in the patient with skeletal class III malocclusion treated with MEAW technique (n = 30).