ObjectivesThe objective of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis of no difference in transverse skeletal and dental arch expansion and relapse after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy versus surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion.Material and MethodsA MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted by including human studies published in English from January 1, 2000 to June 1, 2016.ResultsThe search provided 130 titles and four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All the included studies were characterized by high risk of bias and meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variation. Both treatment modalities significantly increase the transverse maxillary skeletal and dental arch width. The transverse dental arch expansion and relapse seems to be substantial higher with tooth-borne surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion compared to segmental Le Fort I osteotomy. The ratio of dental to skeletal relapse was significantly higher in the posterior maxilla with tooth-borne surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion. Moreover, a parallel opening without segment tilting was observed after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy.ConclusionsMaxillary transverse deficiency in adults can be treated successfully with both treatment modalities, although surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion seems more effective when large transverse maxillary skeletal and dental arch expansion is required. However, considering the methodological limitations of the included studies, long-term randomized studies assessing transverse skeletal and dental expansion and relapse with the two treatment modalities are needed before definite conclusions can be provided.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the short term dental and skeletal stability of the anterior maxillary segment after segmental Le Fort I osteotomy with postoperative skeletal elastic fixation with or without occlusal splint.Material and Methods29 consecutive patients underwent segmental Le Fort I osteotomy and elastic skeletal fixation was applied. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether a fixed occlusal splint was used for six weeks (group A) or dismounted perioperatively (group B). Changes in landmarks and reference planes between the two timepoints were estimated on lateral cephalometric radiographs.ResultsGroup A: The upper incisor had a mean intrusion of -0.56 mm (SD 0.77; range -2.04 to 1.08 mm) and a mean posterior movement of -0.93 mm (SD 1.03; range -2.52 to 0.96 mm). The mean change in the axial inclination of the upper incisor was -0.33° (SD 2.56; range -6° to 4°) (95% CI: -1.75 to 1.08°). Group B: The upper incisor had a mean intrusion of -0.13 mm (SD 1.36; range -1.92 to 3.6 mm) and a mean anterior movement of 0.11 mm (SD 1.78; range -2.88 to 3.84 mm). The mean change in the axial inclination of the upper incisor was -0.07° (SD 3.05; range -5° to 5°) (95% CI: -1.83 to 1.69°). There was no statistically significant difference in stability between the two groups at the P value 0.05.ConclusionsThe skeletal anterior fixation with postoperative elastics for eight weeks may not compromise the early postoperative dental and skeletal stability of the anterior segment in segmental Le Fort I osteotomy.

ObjectivesThe objective of the present systematic review was to assess the transverse skeletal and dental arch expansion and relapse after mandibular midline distraction osteogenesis with a bone-borne, tooth-borne or hybrid distraction appliance.Material and MethodsA MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library search in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals was conducted. Human studies published in English until the 3rd of July, 2018 were included.ResultsTwo comparative and seven non-comparative studies characterized by high risk of bias fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Transverse mandibular widening was achieved with the different types of distraction appliance displaying a horizontal V-shaped opening with larger anterior transverse expansion declining progressively towards the posterior part of the mandible. Bone-borne and hybrid appliance facilitate more skeletal expansion compared with tooth-borne appliance, whereas comparable dental arch expansion was achieved with the different types of distraction appliance. Skeletal and dental arch relapse with the different type of appliance was limited and comparable. However, frequency of complications was higher with bone-borne appliance compared with tooth-borne or hybrid appliance.ConclusionsMandibular midline distraction osteogenesis with bone-borne, tooth-borne or hybrid distraction appliance is an effective treatment modality to correct severe transverse mandibular discrepancies, although the skeletal and dental arch expansion pattern was dissimilar with the different types of appliance. However, dissimilar evaluation methods, different outcome measures, various methodological confounding factors posed serious restrictions reviewing the literature in a quantitative systematic manner. Hence, well-designed long-term randomized controlled trials applying three-dimensional technology, patient-related outcome measures and an economic perspective are needed before definite conclusions can be provided.