Factors related to maxillary expander loss due to anchoring deciduous molars exfoliation during treatment in the mixed dentition phase

Three-dimensional assessment on digital cast of spontaneous upper first molar distorotation after Ni-ti leaf springs expander and rapid maxillary expander: A two-centre randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the spontaneous distorotation of upper first permanent molars and the transverse dentoalveolar changes on digital casts in growing patients following maxillary expansion treatment using either the Leaf Expander® or the rapid maxillary expander (RME), both anchored to the deciduous second molar.

TRIAL DESIGN AND SETTING

This study was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, RCT with a dual-centre design conducted at two teaching hospitals in Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

Inclusion criteria included maxillary transverse deficiency, prepubertal development stage (cervical vertebra maturation stage [CVMS] 1-2) and early mixed dentition with fully erupted upper first permanent molars. Exclusion criteria were systemic diseases or syndromes, CVMS 3-6, agenesis of upper second premolars, unavailability of the second deciduous molar for anchorage and Class III malocclusion.

RANDOMIZATION

Patients were randomly assigned to the Leaf Expander® or RME group using a computer-generated randomization list created by a central randomization centre. Randomization was conducted immediately before the start of treatment.

INTERVENTION

The intervention involved treatment with either the Leaf Expander® or the RME. Both devices were anchored to the second deciduous molars. Following randomization, patients were further categorized based on the presence of no crossbite, unilateral crossbite or bilateral crossbite.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was the distorotation of the upper first molar (U6). Secondary outcomes included measurements of interdental linear dimensions, specifically upper inter-canine width (53-63), upper inter-molar width (MV16-MV26) and upper inter-deciduous second molar width (55-65).

BLINDING

The examiner analysing the digital casts was blinded to the treatment groups to prevent detection bias and ensure objective assessment. However, due to the nature of the intervention, blinding was not feasible for the patients and clinicians involved in administering the treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to two groups: 75 to the Leaf Expander® group and 75 to the RME group. Recruitment started in November 2021 and was completed in November 2022. At the time of analysis, the trial was complete with no ongoing follow-ups. ANOVA tests revealed no significant differences between the three subgroups (no-cross, unilateral-cross and bilateral-cross) within both the Leaf Expander® and RME groups at T0. The Leaf Expander® demonstrated significantly greater distorotation in the unilateral crossbite subgroup compared to the RME (p = .014). In terms of total molar distorotation, the Leaf Expander® appliance showed a significantly greater effect (12.66°) compared with conventional RME (7.83°). Linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant correlation between the extent of expansion and the degree of molar rotation.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary expansion resulted in significant spontaneous molar distorotation when the appliance was bonded to the second deciduous molars. The Leaf Expander® exhibited significantly greater molar distorotation compared with conventional RME. The degree of molar distorotation was correlated with the extent of expansion obtained on the second deciduous molar.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05135962).

Efficacy of clear aligners vs rapid palatal expanders on palatal volume and surface area in mixed dentition patients: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Invisalign First Phase I treatment compared with tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in mixed dentition patients by examining changes in palatal volume, palatal surface area, and maxillary interdental transverse measurements.

METHODS

In this open-label, 2-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial, patients with a posterior transverse discrepancy ≤6 mm were allocated into the clear aligner therapy (CAT) group (Invisalign First Phase I treatment) and RME group (tooth-borne RME) according to a computer-generated randomization list immediately before the start of treatment. Digital models were obtained before the beginning of the treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period/treatment (T1) using an intraoral scanner. Palatal volume was measured as the primary outcome, and palatal surface area and intermolar and intercanine transverse widths at the cusps and gingival level were measured as secondary outcomes. Patients and interventionists were not blinded because of the nature of the intervention.

RESULTS

Out of 50 patients, 41 (19 males and 22 females; mean age, 8.12 ± 1.53 years) were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: 20 in the CAT group and 21 in the RME group. Two participants did not receive the allocated intervention for different reasons (1 patient discontinued the intervention in the CAT group, and another patient was lost to follow-up in the RME group). Thus, 19 patients (5 males and 14 females; mean age, 8.48 ± 1.42 years) were analyzed from the CAT group, and 20 patients (12 males and 8 females; mean age, 7.83 ± 1.19 years) from the RME group. Regarding intragroup comparisons, all outcome measures significantly increased from T0 to T1 in both groups. In terms of intergroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in the variation (Δ) of outcome measures between the 2 groups from T0 to T1, except for the intermolar width at the gingival level (P <0.005). The change in palatal volume was 532.01 ±540.52 mm³ for the RME group and 243.95 ± 473.24 mm³ for the CAT group (P = 0.084), with a moderate effect size (d = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

RME showed trends favoring better outcomes compared with Invisalign First Phase I treatment across all assessed measures. The only parameter that showed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups was variation in intermolar width at the gingival level, suggesting the occurrence of buccal tipping in patients undergoing Invisalign First Phase I treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT04760535).

Posterior crossbite corrections in the early mixed dentition with quad helix or rapid maxillary expander: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Unilateral posterior crossbite is a common malocclusion, and early treatment is recommended to enable normal growth. There are several possibilities regarding choice of appliances used for correcting this malocclusion; however, when treatment is financed by public funds the decision needs to be based not only on the effects but also on the effect in relation to the costs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing quad helix (QH) and rapid maxillary expanders (RME; hyrax-type) in children in the early mixed dentition.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy-two patients were randomized to treatment with either QH or RME, at two different centres. Data were collected from the patient's medical records regarding success rate, number of visits, total treatment time, emergency visits, and so forth, together with answers from patient questionnaires concerning absence from school and use of analgesics. A cost-effectiveness analysis with both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol approach was performed, as well as a deterministic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The success rate, one year after the completion of the expansion, was equal between groups according to the ITT approach. From a healthcare perspective, the mean cost difference between RME and QH was €32.05 in favour of QH (P = 0.583; NS). From a societal perspective, the mean cost difference was €32.61 in favour of QH (P = 0.742; NS). The total appliance cost alone was higher in the RME group €202.67 resp. €155.58 in the QH group (P = 0.001). The probability of RME having a higher cost was 71% from a healthcare perspective and 62.7% from a societal perspective. The total treatment time was 97 days longer in the QH group. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, when using a higher valuation of the children's educational loss, the QH becomes €58 more costly than the RME. There was a statistically significant difference in chair time and visits between centres (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The difference in costs between RME and QH is not statistically significant, however, there is a slightly higher probability that RME is more expensive than QH with a mean cost of an additional €32 per patient from a healthcare perspective. Different work procedures at different centres indicate that logistics around the patient's treatment is a more important aspect than appliance used to decrease the number of visits and save chair time and thereby also costs.

External root resorption and rapid maxillary expansion in the short-term: a CBCT comparative study between tooth-borne and bone-borne appliances, using 3D imaging digital technology

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to analyze and compare external root resorption (ERR) in patients treated with tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME).

METHODS

The sample included 40 subjects who received tooth-borne RME (TB group, average age: 13.1 ± 1.08 years) or bone-borne RME (BB group, average age: 14.5 ± 1.11 years) and Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before treatment (T0) and after 3-month of retention (T1). A specific 3D Imaging technology was used to generate 3D models of posterior dentition (M1 = maxillary first molars, P2 = second premolars, P1 = first premolar) and calculate volumetric data (mean and percentage values) and shape changes, the latter obtained from deviation analysis between the radicular models at different time points. Evaluation of radicular length changes was performed for each tooth. Data were statistically analysed to perform intra-timing and inter-groups comparisons.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of radicular volume and length was found in posterior dentition in both groups (p < 0.05), and the M1 (volume) and its palatal root (length) were mostly involved in this response. No differences were found between M1, P1 and P2 (p > 0.05) when volumetric changes were calculated as percentage of the total volume. Deviation analysis revealed that the radicular areas mostly affected by shape change were the apex and bucco-medial side. The amount of ERR was significantly greater in TB group compared to BB group.

CONCLUSIONS

BB-RME treatment could reduce the amount of ERR at the post-expansion stage.

CBCT Comparison of Dentoskeletal Effects of Haas-Type and Hyrax-Type Expanders Using Deciduous Teeth as Anchorage: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the three-dimensional dentoskeletal effects of Haas-type and Hyrax-type expanders using primary teeth as anchorage for rapid palatal expansion (RPE). Thirty-four subjects in mixed dentition were divided according to their expander’s type: Hyrax (n = 16; 6F, 10M; mean age 8 ± 3 years) or Haas (n = 18; 14F, 4M; mean age 8 ± 2 years). Each patient underwent CBCTs before (T0) and after RPE (T1). Dentoskeletal changes were collected. A paired sample t-test and independent t-test were used to compare each variable within the same group and between groups, respectively, with a 5% significance. The Hyrax group showed an increase in all dentoskeletal parameters; skeletal expansion was significantly increased anteriorly (1.76 mm) and posteriorly (1.93 mm). The greatest dental expansion was observed in the anchorage unit (6.47 mm), about twice as much as permanent molars (3.42 mm). The same statistical significance of Haas group measurements was observed; anteriorly skeletal expansion (2.97 mm) was greater than posteriorly (1.93 mm) and dental expansion was greater on anchored teeth (6.80 mm) than non-anchored teeth (4.57 mm). No statistical significance was observed between Hyrax and Hass groups. CBCT analysis showed that, in RPE, the dental expansion was greater than skeletal expansion. No significant or clinical changes were observed between Hyrax and Haas appliances anchored to primary teeth.