## 4 Discussion  
Class III malocclusion in growing children is one of the most challenging malocclusions to treat. The most common treatment protocols for Class III malocclusion include RME/FM therapy, function regulator, chin cup, and other approaches [1; 2; 5; 7; 20; 21]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RME/FM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RMR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Diff.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% C.I.**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & & & **Lower** & **Upper** \\ \hline Age (years) & 1.6 & 0.4 & 1.8 & 1.1 & \(-\)0.2 & 0.425 & \(-\)0.6 & 0.3 \\ SNA (deg) & 1.9 & 1.3 & \(-\)0.4 & 2.2 & 2.3 & **0.000** & 1.2 & 3.2 \\ SNB (deg) & \(-\)1.3 & 1.5 & 0.0 & 1.6 & \(-\)1.3 & **0.006** & \(-\)2.1 & \(-\)0.4 \\ ANB (deg) & 3.2 & 1.8 & \(-\)0.4 & 1.7 & 3.6 & **0.000** & 2.6 & 4.6 \\ Wits (mm) & 1.6 & 2.7 & \(-\)1.0 & 2.7 & 2.6 & **0.001** & 1.1 & 4.1 \\ CoGn (mm) & 4.1 & 2.5 & 4.6 & 2.6 & \(-\)0.5 & 0.483 & \(-\)1.9 & 0.9 \\ SN-Pal. Pl. (deg) & \(-\)0.7 & 2.1 & 0.0 & 2.3 & \(-\)0.7 & 0.229 & \(-\)2.0 & 0.5 \\ SN-Mand. Pl. (deg) & 1.5 & 2.0 & \(-\)0.3 & 2.5 & 1.8 & **0.007** & 0.5 & 3.0 \\ Pal. Pl.–Mand. Pl. (deg) & 2.2 & 3.2 & \(-\)0.3 & 2.1 & 2.5 & **0.002** & 1.0 & 4.1 \\ CoGoMe (deg) & \(-\)1.3 & 2.0 & \(-\)1.0 & 2.9 & \(-\)0.3 & 0.626 & \(-\)1.7 & 1.0 \\ Mol. Rel. (mm) & \(-\)2.4 & 2.5 & 0.1 & 1.5 & \(-\)2.5 & **0.000** & \(-\)3.7 & \(-\)1.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons (independent sample \(t\) test) for the T1–T2 changes. RME/FM therapy is the most common orthopedic treatment protocol for Class III malocclusion [1; 2; 3; 4]. Many functional appliances have been proposed to correct Class III deformities in the early developmental phases, and one of these functional appliances is the RMR [8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14]. Although the short-term effects produced by RME/FM and RMR have been described previously [1; 2; 3; 4], limited information on the medium- (postpubertal) to long-term (end of active growth) stability is available [4]. There is lack of information with regard to the comparison of the dento-skeletal effects produced by RME/FM and RMR, re-evaluated at a postpubertal stage of skeletal maturation. The results of the T1-T2 interval (Table 3) can be regarded as the short-term outcomes comparison of the two analyzed protocols. Significant improvements in intermaximillary sagittal skeletal relationships (ANB and Wits appraisal +3.6 degrees and +2.6 mm, respectively) were recorded in the RME/FM treatment group during the T1-T2 interval in comparison with the RMR appliance. In particular, RME/FM produced significantly greater maxillary protraction (SNA +2.3 degrees) and control of the sagittal mandibular position (SNB \(-\)1.3 degrees) (Table 3). These favorable intermaximillary sagittal changes were similar to those reported in previous studies [1; 2; 3; 4]. RME/FM therapy produced a significantly greater clockwise mandibular rotation (SN-Mand. Pl. +1.8 degrees) associated with significantly greater increases in intermaximillary divergence (Pal. Pl.-Mand. Pl. +2.5 degrees) with respect to RMR. This result is in agreement with previous studies [1; 2; 3; 4]. As for the short-term dental changes, the RME/FM compared with RMR showed a significantly greater correction of molar relationship (\(-\)2.5 mm) (Table 3). The comparison of the outcomes during the post-treatment T2-T3 interval, including the pubertal growth spurt, showed a significantly greater relapse in intermaximillary sagittal relationships (ANB \(-\)1.7 mm) in the RME/FM group (Table 4). This relapse was due mainly to unfavorable mandibular sagittal changes rather than maxillary sagittal changes. Additionally, the greater relapse in intermaximillary sagittal relationships could be related probably to a greater post-treatment rebound of the mandibular clockwise rotation in the RME/FM group.