Rapid palatal expansion: a comparison of two appliances

Abstract

Rapid palatal expansion: a comparison of two appliancesAbstract: This study analyzed occlusal radiographs to compare the transverse changes produced in patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion using two types of appliances. The sample consisted of 31 children aged 7 to 10.6 years, of both genders, with posterior cross-bite. Fifteen children were treated with a tooth-borne expander and 16 were treated with a tooth-tissue-borne expander. Occlusal radiographs obtained at treatment onset and at the end of the retention period were digitized. The following variables were measured: intermolar distance (IMD), interapical distance (IApD), interbase distance (IBaD) and interarm distance (IArD). The results revealed increases in all measurements in both groups after rapid maxillary expansion. Comparison between groups revealed that the increases were greater in patients treated with the tooth-borne expander, except for the IArD measurement, which presented the same increase in both groups. Even though the IMD measurements differed between expanders, they were proportional to the activation of the appliances (IBaD). The increase in the IApD measurement was proportionally greater in the group treated with the tooth-borne expander (0.7:1.0) than in that treated with the tooth-tissue-borne expander (0.4:1.0). It was concluded that both appliances had similar effects, although the tooth-tissue-borne expander produced a lesser opening at the apical region of the incisors.

Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal effects produced by the bonded expander and hyrax: a pilot study

“…The coronal parameter 1 evaluated the maxillary transverse dimension and showed numerical increases in both groups. These results corroborate other findings in the literature, which also report increase in skeletal transverse dimension after the RME (HAAS, 1970;RODRIGUES et al, 2012;SARVER;JOHNSTON, 1989). Nonetheless, only group 2 presented a statistically significant difference between the initial and final average.…”

“…Several studies have addressed the dentoskeletal effects of these expander appliances (AKYALCIN et al, 2013;ASANZA et al, 1997;BAYSAL et al, 2013;FARRONATO et al, 2008;GARIB et al, 2005;GARRETT et al, 2008;IWASAKI et al, 2014;LAGRAVÈRE et al, 2010;REED et al, 1999;RODRIGUES et al, 2012;SARVER;JOHNSTON, 1989), however, the comparison between them still remains controversial, especially regarding to the vertical effects. Some authors concluded that the bonded expander increases the transverse dimension of the maxilla, but limits or even eliminates changes in vertical dimension (ASANZA et al, 1997;SARVER;JOHNSTON, 1989).…”

The Combination of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy and Photobiomodulation Therapy for the Treatment of Palatal Ulcers: A Case Report

“…1 The difference between the tooth-borne and the tooth-tissueborne types of appliances is that the latter appliance has acrylic plates that cover the palatal mucosa bilaterally and is screw-retained with an 11-mm screw. 2 When the tooth-tissue-borne type of expander is used, the ulceration of the palatal mucosa may occur due to the acrylic part. In the presence of ulcers, symptoms such as swelling and pain can be present.…”

A New Proposal: A Digital Flow for the Construction of a Haas-Inspired Rapid Maxillary Expander (HIRME)

“…Transverse maxillomandibular discrepancies are a major cause of several malocclusions [ 2 ]. This type of malocclusion may be corrected in different manners, including slow expansion [ 3 , 4 , 5 ], rapid expansion [ 6 , 7 , 8 ], surgically assisted expansion [ 9 , 10 ] and miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”