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

3D occlusal changes of upper first molars after rapid maxillary expansion on permanent versus deciduous teeth: a retrospective multicenter CBCT study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the three-dimensional dental changes for the maxillary first molars and the overall skeletal effects achieved after expansion between the rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance attached to two different anchor units, the maxillary deciduous molars and the maxillary permanent first molars.

METHODS

Patients were retrospectively selected according to the anchorage unit used for RME: deciduous upper second molars (RME-E group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 8.4 ± 1.1 years) and first upper permanent molars (RME-6 group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 12.6 ± 1.8 years). CBCT scans were obtained before treatment start (T1) and after retention and removal of the expander (T2). Images were analyzed using a new three-dimensional intra-hemi-maxillary reference system. 3D landmarks were marked to calculate all changes on maxillary first permanent molars; mesio-distal and buccal-lingual inclination and rotation, as well as intermolar and interforaminal distances were calculated. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare within-group changes, whereas the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare between-group differences, with the significance level set at 0.05.

RESULTS

In the RME-E group, significant distorotation and lingual inclination of the first permanent molars at T2 were observed (p < 0.01); in the RME-6 group, only the buccolingual inclination of the crossbite side after RME was resulted statistically significant (p < 0.01). In both groups, intermolar and interforaminal values increased significantly (p < 0.01). Intergroup analysis showed a significantly higher distorotation and reduced buccal inclination of maxillary first permanent molars in the RME-E group after RME (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

RME is effective in treating maxillary transverse hypoplasia; RME anchored too deciduous teeth spontaneously reduces buccal inclination and increases distorotation of maxillary first permanent molars, whereas anchorage to permanent molars is associated with increased buccal inclination, albeit with little clinical significance.

Rapid maxillary expansion vs slow maxillary expansion in patients with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the dentoalveolar outcomes of slow maxillary expansion (SME) and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) used for maxillary expansion before secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Secondarily, the advantages and disadvantages of SME vs RME were reviewed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to November 2021, including Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS I) tool. Overall quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

RESULTS

Of 4007 records, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The randomized control trial (RCT) had a low risk of bias, the non-RCTs presented with a moderate risk of bias. Arch width and perimeter increased significantly with both SME and RME treatments. No difference in the increase in palatal depth was found. The meta-analysis showed a greater anterior-to-posterior expansion ratio for the Quad Helix (QH) appliance. The results for dental tipping were not conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

SME and RME promote equal posterior expansion in cleft patients. The anterior differential expansion is greater with SME (QH appliance). No clear evidence exists concerning the amount of dental adverse effects of SME and RME in cleft patients.

CBCT Analysis of Dento-Skeletal Changes after Rapid versus Slow Maxillary Expansion on Deciduous Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of the present study was to compare skeletal and dental changes after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and slow maxillary expansion (SME) performed by a Leaf Expander (LE) with upper deciduous teeth as anchorage and using 3D CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) analysis. Mixed dentition patients were randomly divided in two groups, according to the different expansion used anchored on maxillary primary second molars: the RME group (n = 16) was treated with a Hyrax type expander, whereas the SME group (n = 16) was treated with an LE expander. CBCT scans were performed before (T1) and after treatment (T2) and analyzed with a custom landmarks system. A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis between T1 and T2, and a Student t-test was used for intergroup analysis; statistical significance was set at 0.05. Both RME and SME groups showed a statistically significant increase in dental and skeletal diameters. Group comparisons between T1 and T2 showed a significant expansion rate in the RME group for upper permanent molars (p = 0.025) but not for deciduous molars (p = 0.790). Moreover, RME showed higher increases for skeletal expansion evaluated at nasal walls (p = 0.041), whereas at pterygoid plates did not show any significant differences compared with the SME group (p = 0.849). A significant transverse expansion could be achieved with the expander anchored on deciduous teeth. RME and SME produced effective both skeletal and dentoalveolar transverse expansion; RME produced more anterior expansion than SME but less control regarding the permanent molar decompensation. SME by LE therefore could be an efficient and helpful alternative in the treatment of transverse maxillary deficiency in growing patients.

Special Issue on Recent Developments in Orthodontics on Craniofacial Orthopedics

This Special Issue was proposed with the aim of highlighting the recent developments in orthodontics on craniofacial orthopedics [...]

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group (n = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.2 years), with first premolars not in contact and the second deciduous lower molars preserved, was compared to the LT group (n = 288, 137 M, 151 F, mean age 12.4 ± 1.5 years). The ET group was first treated with headgears, growth guide appliances, or Teuscher activators and, in borderline crowding cases, with lower space maintenance by a lingual arch, lip bumper, or fixed utility arch. The LT group and the second phase of ET were treated with full fixed appliances including intermaxillary forces such as Class II elastics or noncompliance devices; headgear and a growth guide appliance were also used. Cephalograms and plaster models were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2) to calculate cephalometric changes and space balance discrepancies. The differences between T1 and T2 were analyzed by a t-test for normally distributed data and by the Mann-Whitney Test for nonnormally distributed data at a level of p < 0.05. The groups were defined as statistically homogeneous at T1. A statistical analysis showed that the ET group (mean treatment time 35.3 ± 13.3 months) was significantly associated with a 22.2% lower extraction rate, 15.9% less need for a full fixed appliance, and more than 5° less incisor proclination in the nonextraction cases compared to the LT group (mean treatment time 25.9 ± 8.1 months); treatment time significantly increased in the ET group compared to the LT group. Early Class II treatment resulted in a significant treatment effort reduction in more than one third of the patients and less lower incisor proclination, even if it clinically increased treatment time.