Arch width Changes with a Rapid Maxillary Expansion Appliance Anchored to the Primary Teeth

Abstract

To avoid undesirable treatment-induced effects on maxillary permanent molars, a stable transverse correction could be achieved with the RME appliance anchored on the primary teeth.

Dental arch response to Haas-type rapid maxillary expansion anchored to deciduous vs permanent molars: A multicentric randomized controlled trial

“…[1][2][3] The effects of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on the maxillary complex have been highly investigated, 4 reporting a maximum maxillary intermolar and intercanine width increase of 6.7 mm and 5.3 mm, 5 respectively, when RME is banded on upper first permanent molars. Literature 6 also reported cases of periodontal and endodontic damage on RME anchoring teeth; therefore, some authors 7-10 have suggested banding RME on primary teeth and reporting also different mean intermolar (3.6-4.1 mm) 8,10 and intercanine width increases (5-5.9 mm). 8,10 Few studies have investigated the changes in molar dental tipping and inclinations (on average from 3u up to 16.7u) 9,11 following RME but comprised difficult (ie, barium sulfate solution) 12 and more invasive examinations such as computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).…”

“…Literature 6 also reported cases of periodontal and endodontic damage on RME anchoring teeth; therefore, some authors 7-10 have suggested banding RME on primary teeth and reporting also different mean intermolar (3.6-4.1 mm) 8,10 and intercanine width increases (5-5.9 mm). 8,10 Few studies have investigated the changes in molar dental tipping and inclinations (on average from 3u up to 16.7u) 9,11 following RME but comprised difficult (ie, barium sulfate solution) 12 and more invasive examinations such as computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). 13,14 Few articles 8,[15][16][17] concerning the indirect effects on mandibular arch following RME 11,18-20 reported a low but statistically significant increase of lower intermolar (0.66 21 -0.97 mm) 20 and intercanine width (0.9 mm).…”

“…13,14 Few articles 8,[15][16][17] concerning the indirect effects on mandibular arch following RME 11,18-20 reported a low but statistically significant increase of lower intermolar (0.66 21 -0.97 mm) 20 and intercanine width (0.9 mm). 8,20 Since no studies in the literature have analyzed the differences in permanent vs primary molars as anchoring teeth for RME, the decision to band the permanent deciduous molars did not follow a clinical protocol, but an individual decision was made for each patient based on clinician experience.…”

“…8,10 Few studies have investigated the changes in molar dental tipping and inclinations (on average from 3u up to 16.7u) 9,11 following RME but comprised difficult (ie, barium sulfate solution) 12 and more invasive examinations such as computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). 13,14 Few articles 8,[15][16][17] concerning the indirect effects on mandibular arch following RME 11,18-20 reported a low but statistically significant increase of lower intermolar (0.66 21 -0.97 mm) 20 and intercanine width (0.9 mm). 8,20 Since no studies in the literature have analyzed the differences in permanent vs primary molars as anchoring teeth for RME, the decision to band the permanent deciduous molars did not follow a clinical protocol, but an individual decision was made for each patient based on clinician experience.…”

Avaliação das Dimensões Transversas na Maxila e Mandíbula em Pacientes na Fase da Dentição Mista Tratados com Aparelho Ortodôntico Removível Superior

“…. Existe um consenso na literatura [2][3][4] de que as más oclusões não estão presentes somente na denti ção permanente e que elas ocorrem também nos estágios que antecedem a maturidade oclusal, a parti r da denti ção decídua.…”