Pain and discomfort during the first week of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using two different RME appliances: A randomized controlled trial

Periodontal evaluation after maxillary expansion with a tooth-bone-borne expander in growing patients : A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate and compare periodontal changes due to rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using tooth-bone-borne and tooth-borne devices in growing patients via clinical examinations and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two eligible patients (aged 11-14 years; transverse maxillary deficiency, posterior crossbite) were screened and divided into two groups based on the treatment received (randomization was performed using computer-generated numeric sequences): hybrid hyrax tooth-bone-borne group (TBB) and hyrax tooth-borne group (TB). The primary outcome was the change in cortical bone thickness (by CBCT). In addition, the clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession, and bleeding were assessed. Both examinations were performed before and 3 months after the activation phase. Intergroup comparisons were performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (12 girls and 9 boys; mean initial age, 13.3 years) were included in the TBB group and 21 (5 girls and 16 boys; mean initial age, 13.2 years) were included in the TB group. The TB group exhibited a decrease in buccal bone thickness in the first premolars and first molars at all three evaluated levels. Specifically, tooth 14 at 3 mm from the enamel-cement junction showed a significant width reduction (0.7 mm; p < 0.001), accompanied by a notable increase in palatal cortical thickness at 6 mm of enamel-cement junction (1.13 mm; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RME resulted in buccal bone thickness reduction at the first premolar with hyrax treatment. In the molar region, both devices resulted in cortical bone alterations that were less pronounced in the TBB group.

Why does maxillary skeletal expansion work with some adults and fail with Others?: A narrative review

Maxillary skeletal expansion is considered a challenging treatment modality in adult ages. Mini-screw-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) is considered a pioneer in providing a solution for maxillary deficiency in adults away from any surgical interventions. If we consider patient cooperation and motivation, together with operator skills, as constant factors during MARPE, and exclude all hygiene and soft tissue complications that jeopardise the appliance's stability, there is a percentage of expansion failure recorded in different studies with no emphasis on what makes mid-facial diastema appear in some, rather than others. Electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, were searched for literature published in English till 2023. Failure was related in some literature to different criteria, as of yet, no verifiable indicators would allow us to determine success or failure in advance. This review highlighted the most common reasons for failure discussed in different literature: Chronological Age, Mid-palatal suture maturation, Bone density, Sex, Race, Appliance design, and Expansion technique used. This study could be considered an attempt to make candidate selection for non-surgical maxillary skeletal expansion at this old age easier, time-saving, and cost less.

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.

Short-term assessment of pain and discomfort during rapid maxillary expansion with tooth-bone-borne and tooth-borne appliances: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare, during the first week of rapid maxillary expansion (RME), the impact caused by two types of appliances: Hyrax and Hybrid Hyrax.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who met the eligibility criteria (aged 11-14 years, with transverse maxillary deficiency, posterior crossbite, and presence of maxillary first premolars and first permanent molars) were selected and randomly divided into two groups: TBB GROUP (tooth-bone-borne expander), treated with Hybrid Hyrax (12 females and 9 males, mean age 13.3 ± 1.3 years), and TB GROUP (tooth-borne expander), treated with Hyrax (5 females and 16 males, mean age 13.3 ± 1.4 years). Pain and discomfort were assessed in two times: after the first day of activation (T1) and four days after, by means of the numerical rate scale and the instrument MFIQ (Mandibular Functional Impairment Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney test were used for comparison between groups and between sexes. A 5% significance level was adopted.

RESULTS

Both appliances had a negative impact, generating pain and discomfort, and reducing functional capacity. However, the scores obtained were of low intensity and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Considering sexes, there were statistically significant differences, with the female sex presenting higher scores for pain and functional limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite causing impact in pain and increase in the functional limitation, these changes were of low intensity, with no statistical difference between the groups. Females were more sensitive to the impact caused by the RME.

Correlation Between Third Molar Mineralization and Midpalatal Suture Maturity: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

BACKGROUND Midpalatal suture ossification varies in patients of different ages, which can lead to making inaccurate presumptions when considering effective treatment timing based on chronological age. Chronological age provides only general information, whereas dental development correlates with skeletal growth, which suggests that tooth mineralization could be considered to be a precise criterion for determining the midpalatal suture's maturity. The present study was conducted to investigate the association between third-molar mineralization and midpalatal suture's maturation stages using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved 97 CBCT images of patients aged 8-37 years with normal growth and development. Subjects with cleft lip and palate, caries treatment, or present cavities in the third molars were not included in the study. The stages of midpalatal suture ossification were evaluated according to the protocol suggested by Angelieri et al, and the third-molar mineralization degree was measured by the Demirjian index. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate correlations between the variables. RESULTS Patients with advanced third-molar mineralization stages were found to have greater midpalatal suture maturity. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between the stages of third-molar mineralization and midpalatal suture maturation (R=0.814, P<0.01). Third-molar development was also found to be associated with chronological age (R=0.883, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS A measure of third-molar mineralization does not allow for accurate determination of the midpalatal suture maturation stage.

Comparison of Different Types of Palatal Expanders: Scoping Review

Maxillary bone contraction is caused by genetics or ambiental factors and is often accompanied by dental crowding, with the possibility of canine inclusion, crossbite, class II and III malocclusion, temporomandibular joint disorder, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS). Transverse maxillary deficits, in which the maxillary growth is unusually modest, are frequently treated with maxillary expansion. The purpose of this study is to compare the dental and skeletal effects of different types of expanders, particularly the Leaf Expander, rapid and slow dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored maxillary expanders.

METHODS

We chose studies that compared effects determined by palatal expansion using a rapid palatal expander, expander on palatal screws, and leaf expander.

RESULTS

Reports assessed for eligibility are 26 and the reports excluded were 11. A final number of 15 studies were included in the review for qualitative analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically and radiographically, the outcomes are similar to those obtained with RME and SME appliances; Therefore, it might be a useful treatment choice as an alternative to RME/SME equipment in cases of poor patient compliance or specific situations. Finally, all of the devices studied produce meaningful skeletal growth of the palate. The use of skeletally anchored devices does, without a doubt, promote larger and more successful growth in adolescent patients.

Self-perceived pain in Hyrax versus other maxillary expansion orthodontic appliances: a systematic review of clinical studies

PURPOSE

To evaluate self-perceived pain levels in the Hyrax compared to other types of maxillary expansion (ME) appliances in growing patients.

METHODS

An unrestricted search of indexed databases and manual searching were performed up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the Hyrax appliance with other ME appliances were included. Data screening, extraction, and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment with the Cochrane tool were performed by two authors.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. The number of participants in the included RCTs ranged between 34 to 114 and included both male and female growing patients. Various tools were used to measure self-perceived pain including the Graphic Rating Scale for Pain, the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale, the Numerical Rating Scale, the visual analogue scale, and a questionnaire. One RCT reported that pain intensity in patients treated with the Hyrax was higher than in the Haas appliance, with a statistically significant difference limited to the first day. Two RCTs reported that pain intensity in patients treated with the Leaf expander was lower than in the Hyrax during the first 7 days of treatment. Two RCTs reported no significant differences in pain intensity between the Hyrax and other ME appliances. One RCT reported that pain intensity in patients using the computer-guided skeletal ME appliance was higher than in the Hyrax appliance at the first day after expansion. Four RCTs had a high RoB, and two RCTs had a moderate RoB.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present systematic review and based on the currently available evidence, it is challenging and inconclusive to identify the best maxillary expansion appliances, regarding pain levels for growing patients.

Pain and discomfort during the first week of maxillary expansion using two different expanders: patient-reported outcomes in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Quad Helix (QH) is the appliance most preferred by orthodontists to correct unilateral posterior crossbite in the early mixed dentition while other orthodontists suggest rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on deciduous teeth in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare perceived pain intensity, discomfort, functional jaw impairment, and analgesic consumption during the first week of treatment with either RME or QH appliances.

TRIAL DESIGN

Two-arm parallel group, two-centre, randomized controlled trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy-two patients, mean age 9.5 (SD ±0.8) years, with unilateral posterior crossbite requiring maxillary expansion were randomly allocated to either the RME (22 boys, 14 girls) or QH (22 boys, 14 girls) group. Validated questionnaires were used to assess pain intensity, discomfort, jaw function impairment, and analgesic consumption, on the first, fourth, and seventh days after appliance insertion and activation.

BLINDING

Due to clinical limitations, only the outcome assessors were blinded to the groups to which the patients were allocated.

RESULTS

Seventy patients completed the questionnaires. Pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance were significantly higher in the QH group on the first day of treatment (P = 0.003 and P = 0.000, respectively). On the fourth day, the chafe from the appliance was still significantly higher in the QH group (P = 0.007). Speech was affected in both groups on day 1; this impairment continued and was significantly higher in the RME group days 4 and 7. No significant difference in analgesic consumption was found between the groups at any time. The analgesic consumption was highest at day 1 of treatment.

HARMS

No harm was observed in any patient.

LIMITATIONS

Double blinding was not possible due to the clinical limitations.

CONCLUSION

During the initial 4 days of treatment, pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance caused the most reported inconvenience in the patients in the QH group. A majority of reported visual analogue scale values were in the lower mid-range, suggesting low to moderate pain and discomfort in both groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04458506.

Pain during Rapid Maxillary Expansion: A Systematic Review

Aim: The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the pain perceived by patients during rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in relation to factors such as demographic characteristics, appliance type, activation protocol, and the eventual use of medication or pain management strategies. Materials and methods: An electronic search of available articles on the subject was conducted on three electronic databases, using predefined keywords. Sequential screenings based on pre-established eligibility criteria were performed. Results: Ten studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. The main data of the reviewed studies were extracted according to the PICOS approach. Conclusions: Pain is a common effect of RME treatment that tends to decrease over time. Gender and age differences in pain perception are not clear. Perceived pain is influenced by the expander design and expansion protocol used. Some pain management strategies can be useful for reducing RME-associated pain.

The effects of orthodontic treatment type, depression, and treatment need on perceived pain intensity

Objectives:

The objectives of this study were to evaluate how orthodontic treatment type, treatment need, and depression affect perceived pain intensity (PPI).

Material and Methods:

This prospective study included 172 patients (80 girls and 92 boys, mean age 14.32 ± 1.57 years) treated at the Sivas Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics. The patients were divided into three groups: the first group was treated with fixed orthodontic appliances, the second group was treated with twin blocks, and the third group was treated with rapid maxillary expansion and reverse headgear (RME/RH). Data were collected and classified with the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need-Dental Health Component (DHC), Children’s Depression Scale, and Visual Analog Scale. PPI was recorded in the 1st week (T0), 2nd week (T1), the 1st month (T2), 2nd month (T3), 3rd month (T4), and the 6th month (T5).

Results:

PPI was higher in boys at T1 (P = 0.005) compared with girls. There was a significant difference of PPI between the treatment groups at T2 (P = 0.036), T3 (P = 0.012), T4 (P = 0.000), and T5 (P = 0.006). A statistically significant positive correlation was found between DHC and PPI at T3 (r = 0.182; P = 0.000), T4 (r = 0.161; P = 0.03), and T5 (r = 0.189; P = 0.000) time periods. There was no significant correlation between depression and PPI.

Conclusion:

Girls were more resistant to pain than boys. The type of treatment and the need for treatment both had an effect on PPI. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of psychological states on PPI during orthodontic treatment.

Do patient-reported outcomes of miniscrew-supported maxillary expansion in adolescent patients differ between slow and rapid activation protocol?

DESIGN

Single-center randomized clinical trial with two parallel arms. The protocol of the study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University (IRB: 00010556-IORG: 0008839) and registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier number: NCT04225637). Before the trial commencement, parents/legal guardians signed informed consents. The study complied with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials).

CASE SELECTION

30 adolescent patients aged between 12 to 16 years with transversely deficient maxilla requiring skeletal maxillary expansion were recruited to be included in the study. Patients received miniscrew-supported Penn expanders and they were randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) into two groups based on the activation protocol; slow maxillary expansion (SME = turn every other day) or rapid maxillary expansion (RME = 2 turn/day).

DATA ANALYSIS

The patient-reported outcome measures were the following: pain, headache, pressure, dizziness, speech, chewing and swallowing difficulties, swallowing difficulty. The participants rated the reported outcomes using numeric rating scale (NRS) at 4 time points: t1 = before appliance insertion, t2 = after first activation, t3 = after 1 week of activation, and t4 = after last activation. Patients were advised not to use analgesics, and to contact their provider in case of severe pain. Descriptive measures and patient-reported outcomes at various time points were calculated. Comparisons between the two groups at each time point were assessed using Mann-Whitney U-test. Comparisons of time points in each group were assessed using the Friedman test and followed by post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

6 patients were not included in the analysis for different reasons, allowing a total of 24 patients (12 patients in each group) to be analyzed. Mean ages of the patients in the SME and RME group were 14.30 ± 1.37 and 15.07 ± 1.59, respectively. Median scores were in the bottom quartiles of NRS for all reported outcomes. RME group reported significantly higher scores for all measured variables, with exception of headache and dizziness, which showed no statistical difference between the two group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mild to moderate discomfort and functional limitation is anticipated with the activation of miniscrew-anchored Penn expanders. Slow activation protocol provided a better overall patient experience when compared to a rapid activation protocol.

Pain and discomfort perception during miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction: secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perception of pain and discomfort of patients and guardians during treatment between miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction (MAMP) therapy using Hybrid (HH) and Conventional Hyrax (CH) expanders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Group HH was composed of 18 subjects (8 female, 10 male; initial age: 10.80 years) with Class III malocclusion treated with a hybrid expander in the maxilla and two miniscrews in the anterior region of the mandible. Class III elastics were used from maxillary first molar to mandibular miniscrews. Group CH was composed of 14 subjects (6 female, 8 male; initial age: 11.44 years) treated with a similar protocol except for conventional Hyrax expander. Pain and discomfort of patients and guardians were assessed using a visual analog scale immediately after placement (T1), after 24 hours (T2), and 1 month after appliance installation (T3). Mean differences (MD) were obtained. Intergroup and intragroup timepoint comparisons were performed using independent t-tests, analysis of variance for repeated measures and Friedman test (P < 5%).

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated similar levels of pain and discomfort with a significant decrease after 1 month of appliance placement (MD: 4.21; P = .608). Compared to patient perceptions, guardians reported a higher level of pain and discomfort at all timepoints (MD, T1: 13.91, P < .001; T2: 23.15, P < .001; T3: 9.35, P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MAMP therapy with HH and CH produced similar levels of pain and discomfort after appliance installation until 1 month after treatment. Pain and discomfort may not influence the choice between HH and CH expanders.

Comparison of rapid versus slow maxillary expansion on patient-reported outcome measures in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No systematic review and meta-analysis are present in the literature comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rapid maxillary expansion (RME) versus slow maxillary expansion (SME) in growing patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to compare PROMs in RME versus SME in growing patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic search in PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey was conducted. Only RCTs were included. Inclusion criteria were: growing patients in the mixed dentition or early permanent dentition, mild-to-moderate maxillary transverse deficiency, dental crowding, treatment with fixed expanders for rapid and slow maxillary expansion. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. GRADE statement was performed. The mean of the differences (MD) and the risk ratio (RR) were used for the aggregation of data. A random effect model was applied.

RESULTS

Two articles with a total of 157 patients were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. One article was at low risk of bias, while one was at risk of bias with some concerns. Pain presence was less, though not statistically significant, in SME patients (RR = 2.02, 95%CI from 0.55 to 7.49, P = 0.29, I² = 95%, 2 studies, GRADE very low). Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME appliance in the first week of treatment (pooled MD = 0.86 favoring SME, 95%CI from 0.47 to 1.26, P < 0.0001, I² = 6%, 2 studies, GRADE moderate). There were no significant differences between the two groups in difficulty in speaking, difficulty in swallowing, hypersalivation, difficulty in hygiene, and patient and parent satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain intensity was significantly lower in SME compared to RME during the first week of treatment. For the following weeks, there were no differences in pain between the two protocols.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of slow vs rapid miniscrew-supported maxillary expansion in adolescents: secondary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient-reported experience between a Penn expander activated every other day vs twice daily.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 patients aged 12-16 years with transverse maxillary deficiency were recruited from the outpatient clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University (February 2019-December 2020). They were randomly allocated to two groups using block randomization (block size of six) and an allocation ratio of 1:1, which was concealed using opaque, sealed, sequentially numbered envelopes. Both groups received Penn expanders anchored by four palatal miniscrews. The slow maxillary expansion (SME) group activated the appliance once every other day. The rapid maxillary expansion (RME) group activated the appliance twice daily. Outcome measures were pain, pressure, headache, dizziness, speech difficulty, chewing difficulty, and swallowing difficulty scores rated by the participants on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) at the following four time points: before appliance insertion (t1), after first activation (t2), after 1 week of activation (t3), and after last activation (t4).

RESULTS

Data of 24 patients in the SME group (n = 12, mean age = 14.30 ± 1.37 years) and RME group (n = 12, mean age = 15.07 ± 1.59 years) were analyzed. Median scores for all outcomes were in the bottom quartiles of the NRS. No difference was found between the two groups at t1 or t2. Significantly higher scores for all variables, except dizziness and headache, were reported in the RME group at t4.

CONCLUSIONS

Activation of miniscrew-supported expanders resulted in mild to moderate discomfort and functional limitation. Slow activation resulted in a better overall patient experience compared with rapid activation.

Assessment of Patient-Centered Outcomes When Treating Maxillary Constriction Using a Slow Removable Versus a Rapid Fixed Expansion Appliance in the Adolescence Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the levels of pain, discomfort, and functional impairments between slow and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in treating skeletal maxillary constriction in the adolescence period (i.e., between 12 and 16 years).

Materials and methods

The study sample consisted of 52 patients (21 males and 31 females) with maxillary skeletal constriction in the posterior region. The patients were randomly distributed into either RME (26 patients, with a mean age of 13.87 (± 1.31) years) or slow maxillary expansion group (SME, 26 patients, with a mean age of 14.31 (± 1.19) years). The levels of pain, discomfort, and functional difficulties were assessed after 24 hours (T1), 7 days (T2), 15 days (T3), one month (T4), and four months (T5) following the onset of the expansion procedure.

Results

Patients in the RME group encountered significantly greater levels of pain and discomfort than those in the SME group at T1, T2, and T3 (p>0.001). Chewing and swallowing difficulties were significantly greater in the RME group at T1, T2, T3, and T4 (P≤0.001). The pressure on soft tissue was greater in the RME group at T2 and T3 (p>0.001). After four months (T5), the levels of pain and discomfort decreased to their lowest levels, as well as the difficulties of chewing and swallowing, and the pressure on soft tissue were almost non-existent in both groups.

Conclusion

Patients treated with the removable slow maxillary expander reported lower levels of pain and discomfort, fewer chewing and swallowing difficulties, and less pressure on soft tissues than those treated with the bonded rapid maxillary expander. These difficulties gradually decreased over time in both groups. The lower levels of pain and discomfort may make the SME an effective and comfortable treatment alternative for adolescents with skeletal maxillary constriction.

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.

Mini Hyrax vs Hyrax expanders in the rapid palatal expansion in adolescents with posterior crossbite: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the dental effects, impact on quality of life, and pain perception of adolescents wearing Mini Hyrax and Hyrax expanders in rapid palatal expansion.

METHODS

Thirty-four adolescents aged 11 to 16 years, with maxillary transverse deficiency (unilateral or bilateral posterior crossbite), were randomly allocated into two groups, Mini Hyrax group and Hyrax group (1:1 ratio). Dental effects were evaluated by digitally superimposed pretreatment and postretention three-dimensional intraoral scans on the palatal rugaes using the software 3DSlicer. Impact on quality of life was assessed with the OHIP-14 questionnaire applied in the pretreatment, posttreatment and postretention. Visual analog scale was applied 24, 48, and 72 h and 7 days after the first activation of the expander.

RESULTS

Thirty of the 34 adolescents recruited completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences in dentoalveolar effects between groups. OHIP-14 scores across time among Mini Hyrax wearers were similar to those of the Hyrax wearers. The inter-group comparisons showed no difference between groups with respect to the OHIP-14 scores in posttreatment and postretention (p > 0.05). There were no differences in pain perception between groups. Considering intra-group comparison, the reduction in pain perception among adolescents in the Mini Hyrax group was gradual. Among adolescents in the Hyrax group, a statistically significant reduction between 48 and 72 h was observed.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in dental effects, impact on quality of life and pain perception between adolescents wearing Mini Hyrax and Hyrax expanders in rapid palatal expansion.

Comparative Assessment of Anxiety, Pain, and Discomfort During Rapid Maxillary Expansion Using Two Different Activation Protocols in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare and assess the pain perception, anxiety, and discomfort between two different rapid maxillary expansion (RME) protocols in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).

DESIGN

This is a prospective study.

SETTING

The study was done in a comprehensive cleft care center.

PATIEN AND PARTICIPANTS

The sample included 26 patients between ages 6 and 9 years with a history of repaired UCLP.

INTERVENTIONS

The patients were randomly allotted into 2 groups-Group A and Group B. Group A received 1 RME activation per day and Group B received 2 activations per day. The participants after RME activation completed a self-report questionnaire and ranked the pain and anxiety levels using Faces pain scale and Hamilton anxiety scale, respectively. The evaluation was done every day for 1 week.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The Faces Pain Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Scale, and self-report questionnaires assessed the pain, anxiety, and discomfort experienced by the patients after 2 different types of RME activation protocols.

RESULTS

Group B experienced significantly higher pain in the molars than Group A (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the 2 RME activation protocols regarding anxiety and jaw discomfort.

CONCLUSION

Patients who received 2 activations per day experienced significantly higher levels of pain in the molars compared to the patients who received a single activation per day. There were no significant differences between the 2 activation protocols in terms of pain in the palate, tongue, anxiety, and jaw discomfort.

Perceived Pain during Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME): Trends, Anatomical Distinctions, and Age and Gender Correlations

Objectives

To investigate pain trends and characteristics of different facial districts in patients undergoing rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and its possible correlations with age and gender.

Materials and Methods

85 subjects (45 males and 40 females) undergoing RME were selected and analyzed during first two weeks of treatment. Patients rated daily two types of pain perception: the general perceived pain (GPP), i.e., the pain overall perceived in the face, and the local perceived pain (LPP), i.e., the pain perceived locally in the following anatomical areas: anterior palate (APA), posterior palate (PPA), nasal (NA), joint (JA), and zygomatic (ZA). Patients were provided the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale (FPS) to correctly assess their GPP and LPP. Pearson correlation coefficient and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were, respectively, used to define the linear relationship between all the variables considered and to verify whether the response variables (gender and age) were significantly different (α < 0.05).

Results

Sample's mean age was 10.11 years. Average pain values of GPP and LPP progressively rise from day 1 to days 2-3 (pain peak) and tended to decrease until day 14, with a linear decrease for GPP and a not linear decrease for LPP. PPA and APA resulted the most painful areas, followed, respectively, by JA, ZA, and NA. Statistically significant differences resulted in average pain values according to patients' age and gender, both in GPP and LPP.

Conclusion

RME causes perception of pain in several maxillofacial areas. Pain reported during RME resulted positively correlated with age and gender of patients.

Comparison between two screws for maxillary expansion: a multicenter randomized controlled trial on patient's reported outcome measures

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare an expansion screw of the maxilla that generates moderate and continuous forces versus a conventional screw for rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on patient-reported outcome measure during the first 12 weeks of treatment.

TRIAL DESIGN

This is a superiority, multicenter, two-arm parallel balanced randomization trial.

METHODS

Patients in the mixed dentition were included with a transverse discrepancy between the two arches of at least 3 mm. An expansion screw using moderate continuous forces (Leaf group, treated with an expansion screw with Ni-Ti springs) was compared to a conventional RME screw that generates intermittent heavy forces (RME group). The primary response variable was the visual analogue scale (VAS) on pain calculated in the first 12 weeks of therapy. The VAS on difficulty on speaking and oral hygiene, patient satisfaction, and complications were also evaluated. A computer-generated block randomization was used with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered opaque-sealed envelopes. Blinding was not applicable. Linear models were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients in the Leaf group and 28 patients in the RME group were randomized and included in the study. There were no dropouts. The mean of the VAS for pain was 0.3 ± 0.4 in the Leaf group and 0.6 ± 0.5 in the RME group. The difference was -0.3 (95 per cent CI from -0.5 to -0.0; P = 0.017) in favour of the Leaf group. The difference in pain was marked in the first week (Leaf group 2.2 ± 2.3; RME group 3.7 ± 2.6; difference -1.5; 95 per cent CI from -2.7 to -0.3; P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the Leaf group experienced a lower degree of pain, especially during the first week following the application of the expander. For the other variables, no significant differences were reported between the two treatments.

REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the ISRCTN register on 8 November 2016 with the number ISRCTN18263886.

Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects using tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne RME appliances: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of tooth-borne (TB) and tooth-bone-borne (TBB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-two consecutive patients who met the eligibility criteria were recruited and allocated to either the TB group, mean age 9.3 years [standard deviation (SD) 1.3], or the TBB group, mean age 9.5 years (SD 1.2). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) records and plaster models were taken before (T0), directly after (T1), and 1 year after expansion (T2). Dentoalveolar and skeletal measurements were made on the CBCT images. The dental expansion was also measured on the plaster models.

RANDOMIZATION

Participants were randomly allocated in blocks of different sizes using the concealed allocation principle in a 1:1 ratio. The randomization list was also stratified by sex to ensure homogeneity between groups.

BLINDING

Due to clinical limitations, only the outcomes assessors were blinded to the groups to which the patients were allocated.

RESULTS

Skeletal expansion in the midpalatal suture and at the level of the nasal cavity was significantly higher in the TBB group. However, the magnitude of the expansion in the midpalatal suture was around 1 mm [95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 0.5-1.7, P = 0.001] more and perhaps not clinically significant. The magnitude of the expansion at the level of the nasal cavity was almost two times higher in the TBB group (95 per cent CI 0.7-2.6, P = 0.001). The dental expansion, alveolar bending, tipping of the molars, and stability 1 year post-expansion did not show any statistically significant differences between the groups. The actual direct cost of the treatment for the TBB group was approximately €300 higher than TB group.

LIMITATIONS

Double blinding was not possible due to the clinical limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

In young preadolescents with constricted maxilla and no signs of upper airway obstruction, it seems that conventional TB RME achieves the same clinical results with good stability 1 year post-expansion at lower cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was not registered.

Evaluation of self-perceived pain and jaw function impairment in children undergoing slow and rapid maxillary expansion: A prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare perceived pain and jaw function impairment during the first 4 weeks with slow maxillary expansion (SME) using quadhelix and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using conventional banded hyrax.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients aged 10.2 to 15 years were enrolled and consecutively recruited to either the quadhelix group (QG) or hyrax group (HG). A questionnaire was used to evaluate pain, jaw function impairment, and analgesic consumption in the first 7 days, at 2 weeks, and at 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (43 girls and 12 boys) completed the questionnaire at all time points (27 in the QG and 28 in the HG). Except at 4 hours, there were no significant differences between the groups regarding pain from teeth, tongue, and palate. Patients started to adapt after day 3. Patients in the HG group reported significantly higher scores for difficulty in swallowing (moderate to severe) during the first 6 days. In both groups, minimal effects were found on speech and the majority of patients did not experience difficulty in yawning or laughing. There was no significant difference in analgesic consumption between the groups. No correlations were found between age, gender, or malocclusion type and any of the investigated outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Quadhelix for SME and conventional banded hyrax for RME were well tolerated by patients after 1 week. The decision to use either appliance could be based on factors not related to patient experiences.

Treatment of maxillary transversal deficiency by using a mini-implant-borne rapid maxillary expander and aligners in combination

Bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion distraction devices are used to achieve a more skeletal expansion and to avoid dental side effects of conventional expanders such as tipping of anchorage teeth. In this article, we report the use of a prefabricated expander fixed on 2 mini-implants in the anterior palate. This allows for the insertion of the mini-implants and the expander to occur without the need for an impression or any laboratory procedures. Especially when aligners are going to be used, the use of a mini-implant-borne expander seems to be reasonable because the expander can be left in place as a skeletal retainer during the aligner finishing.

Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique.

Methods

A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out.

Results

Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial of pain and discomfort during maxillary expansion: Leaf expander versus hyrax expander

BACKGROUND

Pain suffered by the young patient is the most frequent symptom during orthodontic treatment and is the one that most frightens children and causes worry in their families.

AIM

To investigate pain perception and function impairment during the first week of activation of two palatal expansion screws.

DESIGN

A total of 101 subjects were randomly divided into two groups: RME group included patients treated with the standard hyrax expansion screw and LEAF group included patients treated with Leaf Expander appliance. Pain intensity was assessed via the Wong-Baker scale. A questionnaire on oral function impairments was also compiled by the patients.

RESULTS

The Pain Scale analysis showed that patients in the RME group suffered from a significantly higher level of pain than those in the LEAF group (88.6% vs 25%, P < .01). RME group showed highest pain indexes from day 1 to day 4 (51.4% RME vs 9.7% LEAF suffered at least once from strong pain in the first 4 days, P < .01). Furthermore, oral functions were similarly affected in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain reported during maxillary arch expansion is influenced by clinical activation protocol and by the screw type. Patients treated with Leaf Expander reported significantly lower pain level in the first 7 days of treatment.

Are there benefits from using bone-borne maxillary expansion instead of tooth-borne maxillary expansion? A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the clinical effects of bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with conventional tooth-borne RME in the treatment of maxillary deficiency.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched up to September 2018 for randomized clinical trials comparing bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME to conventional tooth-borne RME in patients of any age or sex. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers on 6 unique trials with 264 patients (42.4% male; average age 12.3 years) were finally included. Limited evidence indicated that bone-borne RME was associated with greater suture opening at the first molar post-retention (1 trial; MD 2.0 mm; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 mm; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant differences could be found regarding tooth inclination, nasal cavity width, and root resorption (very low to low evidence quality). Hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME was associated with less buccal tipping of the first premolar (2 trials; MD - 4.0°; 95% CI - 0.9 to - 7.1°; moderate evidence quality) and lower nasal airway resistance post-retention (1 trial; MD - 0.2 Pa s/cm3; 95% CI - 0.4 to 0 Pa s/cm3; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant difference could be found regarding skeletal maxillary width, molar inclination, and analgesic use (low to moderate evidence quality). The main limitations affecting the validity of the present findings were (a) imprecision due to the inclusion of few trials with limited sample sizes that precluded robust detection of existing differences and (b) methodological issues of the included trials that could lead to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence from randomized trials indicates that bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME might present advantages in terms of increased sutural opening, reduced tooth tipping, and lower nasal airway resistance compared to conventional tooth-borne RME. However, the limited number of existing studies and issues in their conduct or reporting preclude the drawing of definite conclusions.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42017079107 ).

Efficacy of ketoprofen lysine salt and paracetamol/acetaminophen to reduce pain during rapid maxillary expansion: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is an orthopaedic procedure indicated for a wide variety of clinical conditions.

AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of ketoprofen lysine salt (KLS) vs paracetamol/acetaminophen (P) on pain perception during RME.

DESIGN

One hundred and fifty-one subjects (mean age 8.6 year) were enrolled in this prospective controlled clinical trial according to inclusion criteria: prepuberal stage of development, negative posterior transverse interarch discrepancy, non-concurrent use of other drugs. First phase: n.40 allocated to Group 1 used 40 mg of KLS, n.40 to Group 2 used 250 mg of P, n.36 to Group 3 as control group. Second phase: n.35 allocated to Group 4 used 40 mg ketoprofen lysine salt once a day for the first 3 days of activation. Pain experience was reported on a numeric rating scale (0-4) and a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Pain perception was tested with the Mann-Whitney test (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Pain perception was higher during the first 3 days of activation and it was described as mild to moderate. Group 1 experienced significantly less pain during the fourth, fifth, and sixth day (P < 0.05) compared with Group 2. Patients of the Group 4 reported significantly lower pain during the whole period of RME activation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The perceived higher pain was reported during the second and third day of expansion. The analgesic effect of KLS is more effective than P during the fourth, fifth, and sixth day. The use of KLS during the first 3 days of activation seems to be able reducing pain during the whole active phase.

Is there an optimal initial amount of activation for midpalatal suture expansion? : A histomorphometric and immunohistochemical study in a rabbit model

OBJECTIVE

Accelerated bone-borne expansion protocols on sutural separation and sutural bone formation were evaluated via histomorphometry and immunohistochemistry to determine the optimal initial activation without disruption of bone formation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into four groups. Modified Hyrax expanders were placed across the midsagittal sutures and secured with miniscrew implants with the following activations: group 1 (control), 0.5 mm expansion/day for 12 days; group 2, 1 mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm expansion/day for 10 days; group 3, 2.5 mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm expansion/day for 7 days; and group 4, 4 mm instant expansion followed by 0.5 mm expansion/day for 4 days. After 6 weeks, sutural expansion and new bone formation were evaluated histomorphometrically. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis/Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman's rho correlation (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The smallest median sutural separation was observed in group 1 (3.05 mm) and the greatest in group 4 (4.57 mm). The lowest and highest amount of bone formation were observed in group 4 (55.82%) and in group 3 (66.93%), respectively. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed significant differences in median levels of alkaline phosphatase and osteopontin expression between all experimental groups. The highest level of these proteins was attained in group 3, followed by groups 2, 1, and 4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutural appositional bone formation corresponded with the amount of initial expansion to a point. When initial expansion was increased to 4 mm, sutural bone remodeling was disturbed and new bone formation was decreased. The most effective sutural expansion was achieved with 2.5 mm initial activation followed by 0.5 mm expansion/day for 7 days.