Investigation of Mechanisms Underlying Functional Orthodontic Treatment Combined with Orofacial Myofunctional Training for Early Intervention of Maxillary Protrusion in Children
Lei Zhang 1,a, Yanjun Ren1,b,Jiaxu Li1,c,Huihang Zhang1,d,Dongxin Wang1,e,Jiantong Wang1,f,* Department of Stomatology, The Third Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 69, Yongding Road, 100039 Beijing, China. *Corresponding Author: Jiantong Wang ,wj18501307059@sina.com Abstract:Objective To investigate the multi-level mechanisms and synergistic enhancement patterns of functional orthodontic treatment combined with orofacial myofunctional training for early intervention of maxillary protrusion in children.Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling 90 children aged 8-11 years with maxillary protrusion. They were randomly divided into a functional orthodontic treatment group (n=30), combined treatment group (n=30), and conventional observation group (n=30). A 12-month follow-up was conducted using a multi-modal assessment system including cone-beam CT, high-density electromyography, and biomechanical modeling. Mediation analysis and machine learning were employed to construct treatment efficacy prediction models.Results The combined treatment group showed a reduction in ANB angle of 3.4±0.5° (P<0.01), with an improvement rate of perioral muscle coordination reaching 81.2%, significantly superior to the functional orthodontic treatment group alone (P<0.05). Bone-muscle interface analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between muscle force increment and condylar anterior displacement rate (r=0.76). The indirect effect of orofacial muscle function improvement through optimized occlusal force distribution promoting bone remodeling accounted for 42.3% of the total effect. The prediction model identified key predictive factors including baseline electromyographic activity and initial ANB angle (AUC=0.89).Conclusion Combined treatment achieves dual optimization of structure and function through a synergistic loop of “mechanical regulation-neural remodeling-bone adaptation,” providing theoretical basis for individualized precision intervention. Keywords: Maxillary protrusion; Bone-muscle interface; Neural plasticity; Synergistic mechanism; Prediction model Introduction Maxillary protrusion, as a challenging type of craniofacial developmental abnormality in children, has a critical window for early intervention that is often fleeting—once the golden period of growth and development is missed, treatment difficulty and costs escalate significantly. An expert consensus published by Li Xiaobing et al. (2021)[1] indicated that the prevalence of malocclusion in Chinese children is rising annually, affecting the dental-maxillofacial function and facial aesthetics of nearly 260 million children. While traditional functional appliances can improve jaw relationships to some extent, single mechanical intervention is often insufficient for functional disorders caused by perioral muscle imbalance. A meta-analysis by Li Yulin et al. (2023)[2] confirmed that Twin-block appliances can promote condylar growth in the posterosuperior direction and anterior displacement, providing skeletal evidence for correcting Class II malocclusion. However, as myofunctional abnormalities are the “behind-the-scenes driver” that induces and aggravates deformities, pure mechanical correction cannot fundamentally interrupt the pathogenic chain. A systematic review by Mohammed et al. (2020)[3] showed that prefabricated myofunctional appliances can effectively improve Class II division 1 malocclusion, but their efficacy is closely related to patient compliance. An international expert consensus published by Zhou et al. (2024)[4] further emphasized that orofacial myofunctional training has unique advantages in optimizing occlusal force distribution and promoting neuromuscular remodeling. Based on this research background, this study proposes a synergistic strategy of “functional orthodontic treatment-orofacial myofunctional training” combined intervention, aiming to explore the dual goals of achieving skeletal remodeling and myofunctional optimization through constructing a closed-loop mechanism of “mechanical regulation-neural remodeling-bone adaptation,” providing evidence-based support and theoretical foundation for individualized precision treatment of maxillary protrusion in children. 1. Materials and Methods 1.1 Study Design and Ethics Review This study adopted a prospective three-arm parallel randomized controlled trial design, conducted in the Department of Orthodontics from June 2022 to June 2024. The study protocol was approved by the hospital ethics committee and registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. All guardians of subjects signed written informed consent after being fully informed of the study purpose, intervention measures, potential risks, and right to withdraw, while obtaining verbal consent from the children themselves. The entire study followed the Declaration of Helsinki and CONSORT statement specifications, establishing an independent data safety monitoring committee to assess adverse event incidence quarterly, ensuring subject rights and research quality. 1.2 Subject Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion criteria: (1) Age 8-11 years, in mixed or early permanent dentition stage; (2) Cephalometric diagnosis of skeletal Class II malocclusion (ANB angle ≥5°) with maxillary protrusion (SNA angle ≥84°); (3) Perioral muscle function assessment showing insufficient labial muscle tension or abnormal swallowing patterns; (4) Cervical vertebral bone age at CS2-CS4 growth stage; (5) Good compliance of children and parents. Exclusion criteria: (1) Previous orthodontic or orthognathic surgical treatment; (2) Concurrent cleft lip and palate, craniofacial syndrome, or organic temporomandibular joint disease; (3) Systemic diseases affecting bone metabolism; (4) Severe dental caries or periodontal disease requiring priority treatment; (5) Unable to complete 12-month follow-up period. 1.3 Randomization and Blinding Implementation Computer-generated random number tables were used for central randomization, allocating 90 subjects into functional orthodontic treatment group, combined treatment group, and conventional observation group at a 1:1:1 ratio. Random sequences were generated by an independent statistician and placed in opaque sealed envelopes, opened sequentially according to enrollment order. Due to the nature of intervention measures, operators and subjects could not be blinded, so an assessor-blinded design was adopted—cone-beam CT measurements, electromyographic analysis, and biomechanical modeling were all completed by independent researchers unaware of group allocation. Data entry and statistical analysis stages also maintained blinding until database lock and unblinding. 1.4 Sample Size Calculation Based on pilot study data, the expected ANB angle improvement in the combined treatment group was 3.4°±0.8°, compared to 2.1°±0.9° in the functional orthodontic treatment group, with clinically meaningful differences. With two-sided test α=0.05 and test power 1-β=0.90, PASS 15.0 software was used for sample size estimation comparing means of two independent samples, calculating a minimum of 24 cases per group. Considering approximately 20% dropout rate during the 12-month follow-up, 30 cases per group were finally determined, totaling 90 subjects, to ensure sufficient statistical power and meet subgroup analysis needs, while reserving adequate sample size for mediation analysis and machine learning model construction. 1.5 Intervention Protocol 1.5.1 Design Parameters of Functional Appliances and Orofacial Myofunctional Training Functional appliances used a modified Twin-block design with upper baseplate occlusal plane inclined at 70°. Lower jaw advancement was individually adjusted according to initial overjet to 3-5 mm anterior