Correcting the Bite and the Midface
Anatomical domain · Lesson 16 of 20 · Human Body Systems (HBS)
Today's goal: Explain how orthodontics, Le Fort I advancement, and distraction osteogenesis correct a retruded cleft midface, and why these are done near skeletal maturity.
What a finished product looks like
This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.
I recommend a Le Fort I osteotomy with advancement for Mateo. Justification: he has a Class III, set-back midface (his lower teeth close in front of his upper teeth, and his midface is flat), and the forward move we expect is moderate, which a single Le Fort slide can achieve and heal well. If the planned advancement were very large, I would instead use distraction osteogenesis so new bone could grow gradually into the gap and relapse less. We wait until skeletal maturity, because moving a jaw that is still growing would simply drift back, and the orthodontist levels his teeth first so the new position gives a working bite.
How this was built, step by step
The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.
- 1Start from today's question: How do we correct a retruded midface and an underbite once a child has nearly finished growing?
- 2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
- 3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
- 4Write it up in the required format: Present Mateo's plan at the team meeting. In three or four sentences, recommend either Le Fort I advancement or for him, and justify it using two facts: his Class III, set-back midface and the size of the forward move you expect. Add one sentence on why you are waiting until he is older to operate.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Present Mateo's plan at the team meeting. In three or four sentences, recommend either Le Fort I advancement or distraction osteogenesis for him, and justify it using two facts: his Class III, set-back midface and the size of the forward move you expect. Add one sentence on why you are waiting until he is older to operate.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.
WebXam problem for today's skill
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.