Objectives:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of
3-dimensional maxillary dental changes using two methods of digital model
superimposition.
Setting and Sample Population:
The Department of Orthodontics of Bauru Dental School, University of
São Paulo and University of Michigan Craniofacial Growth Center.
Fifteen subjects with normal occlusion.
Material & Methods:
The sample was composed of digital study models of 15 normal
occlusion subjects taken at 13 (T1), 18 (T2) and 60 years of age (T3). Using
the software SlicerCMF 3.1, superimposition (registration) was conducted
using 9 landmarks placed on the incisive papilla, second and third palatal
rugae and 10 mm distal to the third palatal rugae. Two registration methods
were compared: landmarks (LA) and regions of interest (ROI).
Three-dimensional changes of landmarks on the buccal cusp tip of posterior
teeth bilaterally and the incisal edge of the right central incisor were
measured by three examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficients and
Bland-Altman method evaluated intra- and inter-examiner agreements.
Results:
Good or excellent intra-examiner agreement was found for T1–T2
and T2–T3 measurements using both registration methods.
Inter-examiner agreements were good to excellent for T1–T2
measurements and poor to fair for most T2–T3 measurements. Mean
T1–T2 differences were less than 0.5 mm for most measurements.
Conclusion:
Maxillary digital dental models of patients with normal occlusion
superimposed on palatal rugae showed an adequate reliability for a 5-year
interval comparison using landmarks or regions of interest. Lower than
acceptable reproducibility using both superimposition methods was found for
a 40-year interval comparison.
The aging process slightly deteriorates some occlusal features of individuals with normal occlusion. However, most individuals were satisfied with their aesthetics and occlusal comfort at the sixth decade of life.
Summary
Objectives
To compare posterior crossbite correction frequency and dentoalveolar changes of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the fan-type expander (FE).
Trial design
Two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial.
Methods
Forty-eight patients from 7 to 11 years of age were allocated into two groups. Twenty-four patients were treated with the EDO and 24 patients were treated with the FE. Block randomization was performed. The study was single blind. Digital dental models were acquired before treatment and 6 months after rapid maxillary expansion. The primary outcomes were crossbite correction rate and maxillary arch width changes. Secondary outcomes were interincisal diastema, arch perimeter, length, size and shape, and mandibular dental arch changes.
Results
The final sample comprised 24 patients (13 female and 11 male; mean initial age of 7.62 years) in the EDO group and 24 patients (14 female and 10 male; mean initial age of 7.83 years) in the FE group. The crossbites were corrected in 100 per cent of subjects from EDO group and in 75 per cent of patients in FE group. EDO showed greater increases in maxillary intermolar region (P < 0.001), while the FE demonstrated greater increases in the intercanine distance (P = 0.008). Increase in mandibular inter-first permanent molar distance was slightly greater in the EDO group (mean difference of 0.8 mm). Changes in arch length and perimeter were similar in both groups. Both expanders changed the maxillary arch shape. The post-treatment arch shape was larger in the anterior region for FE and in the posterior region in the EDO group.
Harms
Discomfort during activation was reported by 54 per cent of the participants. A temporary change in the nasal bridge was reported by one patient from FE group.
Conclusions
Maxillary arch width and shape changes were distinct between the EDO and the FE. Greater transversal increases of the anterior and posterior regions were observed for the FE and the EDO, respectively. A slightly greater mandibular spontaneous expansion was observed for the EDO only at the molar region.
Trial registration
NCT03705871.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.