Nasal ventilation and rapid maxillary expansion (RME): a randomized trial

Does rapid maxillary expansion improve nasal airway obstruction? A computer fluid dynamics study in patients with nasal mucosa hypertrophy and obstructive adenoids

INTRODUCTION

Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) expands the maxillary dentition laterally and improves nasal airway obstruction. However, the incidence of nasal airway obstruction improvement after RME is approximately 60%. This study aimed to clarify the beneficial effects of RME on nasal airway obstruction in specific pathologic nasal airway diseases (nasal mucosa hypertrophy and obstructive adenoids) using computer fluid dynamics.

METHODS

Sixty subjects (21 boys; mean age 9.1 years) were divided into 3 groups according to their nasal airway condition (control, nasal mucosa hypertrophy, and obstructive adenoids), and those requiring RME had cone-beam computed tomography images taken before and after RME. These data were used to evaluate the nasal airway ventilation condition (pressure) using computer fluid dynamics and measure the cross-sectional area of the nasal airway.

RESULTS

The cross-sectional area of the nasal airway significantly increased after RME in all 3 groups. The pressures in the control and nasal mucosa groups significantly reduced after RME but did not change significantly in the adenoid group. The incidence of improvement in nasal airway obstruction in the control, nasal mucosa, and adenoid groups was 90.0%, 31.6%, and 23.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of improvement in nasal airway obstruction after RME depends on the nasal airway condition (nasal mucosa hypertrophy and obstructive adenoids). In patients with nonpathologic nasal airway conditions, the obstruction may be sufficiently improved with RME. Furthermore, to some extent, RME may be effective in treating nasal mucosa hypertrophy. However, because of obstructive adenoids, RME was ineffective in patients with nasal airway obstruction.

Dentoskeletal changes due to rapid maxillary expansion in growing patients with tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expanders: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare, using cone-beam computed tomography, the dentoskeletal changes in rapid maxillary expansion with tooth-bone-borne (Hybrid Hyrax) and tooth-borne (Hyrax) appliances.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Forty-two patients who met the eligibility criteria (aged 11-14 years; transverse maxillary deficiency, posterior crossbite, and presence of upper first premolars and molars) were screened and allocated into two groups: HHG (treatment with Hybrid Hyrax) and HG (treatment with Hyrax).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included nasomaxillary dimensional changes. CBCT was performed before and 3 months after the activation phase. Measurements were performed using Dolphin® . Baseline data were compared using one-way ANOVA. For intergroup comparison, ANCOVA was used to analyze the initial age, appliance activations (mm), and mid-palatal suture maturation data as covariates. Statistical significance was set at 5%.

RESULTS

The premolar region in HHG showed increased skeletal changes than in HG, with the difference being 1.5 mm (0.5; 2.6) in the nasal cavity (P = .004), 1.4 mm (0.3; 2.5) in the nasal floor (P = .019), and 1.1 mm (0.2; 2.1) in the maxilla (P = .022). The molar region in HHG showed increased skeletal changes with the difference being 0.9 mm (0.2; 1.5) in the nasal cavity (P = .005), and 0.9 mm (0; 1.8) in the maxilla (P = .042) than in HG. Premolar inclination was higher in HG.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid Hyrax showed more skeletal changes and fewer dental side effects, especially in the first premolar region. The amount of activation influenced the higher nasal skeletal changes in the Hybrid hyrax group.

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites

BACKGROUND

A posterior crossbite occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. The prevalence of posterior crossbite is around 4% and 17% of children and adolescents in Europe and America, respectively. Several treatments have been recommended to correct this problem, which is related to such dental issues as tooth attrition, abnormal development of the jaws, joint problems, and imbalanced facial appearance. Treatments involve expanding the upper jaw with an orthodontic appliance, which can be fixed (e.g. quad-helix) or removable (e.g. expansion plate). This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different orthodontic treatments for posterior crossbites.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 8 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. A third review author participated to resolve disagreements. We used risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarise dichotomous data (event), unless there were zero values in trial arms, in which case we used odds ratios (ORs). We used mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs to summarise continuous data. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies that randomised approximately 1410 participants. Eight studies were at low risk of bias, 15 were at high risk of bias, and eight were unclear. Intervention versus observation For children (age 7 to 11 years), quad-helix was beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 50.59, 95% CI 26.77 to 95.60; 3 studies, 149 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 4.71 mm, 95% CI 4.31 to 5.10; 3 studies, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For children, expansion plates were also beneficial for posterior crossbite correction compared to observation (OR 25.26, 95% CI 13.08 to 48.77; 3 studies, 148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and resulted in higher final inter-molar distances (MD 3.30 mm, 95% CI 2.88 to 3.73; 3 studies, 145 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, expansion plates resulted in higher inter-canine distances (MD 2.59 mm, 95% CI 2.18 to 3.01; 3 studies, 145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of Hyrax is probably effective for correcting posterior crossbite compared to observation (OR 48.02, 95% CI 21.58 to 106.87; 93 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the studies focused on adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) and found that Hyrax increased the inter-molar distance compared with observation (MD 5.80, 95% CI 5.15 to 6.45; 2 studies, 72 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intervention A versus intervention B When comparing quad-helix with expansion plates in children, quad-helix was more effective for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 3 studies, 151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), final inter-molar distance (MD 1.48 mm, 95% CI 0.91 mm to 2.04 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; high-certainty evidence), inter-canine distance (0.59 mm higher (95% CI 0.09 mm  to 1.08 mm; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence) and length of treatment (MD -3.15 months, 95% CI -4.04 to -2.25; 3 studies, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and Haas for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18; 3 studies, 83 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.86 mm to 0.56 mm; 2 studies of adolescents, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax and tooth-bone-borne expansion for crossbite correction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.66 mm, 95% CI -1.36 mm to 0.04 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 65 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There was no evidence of a difference between Hyrax with bone-borne expansion for posterior crossbite correction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 2 studies of adolescents, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) or inter-molar distance (MD -0.14 mm, 95% CI -0.85 mm to 0.57 mm; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For children in the early mixed dentition stage (age 7 to 11 years old), quad-helix and expansion plates are more beneficial than no treatment for correcting posterior crossbites. Expansion plates also increase the inter-canine distance. Quad-helix is more effective than expansion plates for correcting posterior crossbite and increasing inter-molar distance. Treatment duration is shorter with quad-helix than expansion plates. For adolescents in permanent dentition (age 12 to 16 years old), Hyrax and Haas are similar for posterior crossbite correction and increasing the inter-molar distance. The remaining evidence was insufficient to draw any robust conclusions for the efficacy of posterior crossbite correction.

Rapid maxillary expansion may increase the upper airway volume of growing patients with maxillary transverse deficiency

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Niu X, Di Carlo G, Cornelis MA, Cattaneo PM. Three-dimensional analyses of short- and long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion on nasal cavity and upper airway: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020 Aug;23(3):250-276. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12378. Epub 2020 May 5. PMID: 32248642.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

China Scholar Council TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.