Comparison of the Changes Following Two Treatment Approaches: Rapid Maxillary Expansion Versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction

Çelebi, Fatih V.; Çelikdelen, Murat

doi:10.5152/turkjorthod.2020.19023

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Group I and Group II, the amount of point A coming forward could be intercepted as a significant reduction in the convexity at point A, while in Group III, it was insignificant. This result was in agreement with other studies such as Haas (30) , Sari et al (33) , Chung and Font (34) , and others (32,(35)(36)(37) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…The same conclusions FIG (10) Maxillary prognathism mean changes were reached by Al-Mozany et al (36) , Chong et al (44) , and Kajiyama et al (45) . Celebi and Celikdelen (32) found significant upper incisor retrusion in both the RME and alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction groups. The variations might be explained by differences in mechanics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Al-Mozany et al (36) , Parayaruthottam et al (47) , and Almuzian M. et al (31) also reported significant forward movement of the upper lip, only in the alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction group. Celebi and Celikdelen (32) , on the other hand, observed backward migration of the upper lip in both the RME and alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols and explained this difference as a compensation between soft tissue and skeletal alterations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Liou and Tsai in 2005 (13) used an alternate treatment procedure (Alt-RAMEC protocol) for the first time to disarticulate the circum-maxillary sutures without significant maxillary expansion (30)(31)(32) Furthermore, Liou and Tsai's (13) investigations were conducted on Class III patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate, for whom anatomies are different, and hence different responses may be achieved if applied to Class III individuals without cleft lip and palate. Furthermore, a study of the literature found a controversy among proponents of the RME itself; some investigators maintained that the maxilla somewhat travels forward with the aid of the RME, while others demonstrated that the maxilla moves backward (32) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interaction Between Subspinale and Two Expansion Protocols in Class III

Yousif

Elshenaway

abotaha

et al. 2021

Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess and compare skeletal,dental and soft tissue changes of three RME protocols using conventional Hyrax, Hybrid Hyrax, and four miniscrew supported Hyrax using alternated expansion and constriction. Subjects and Methods: 21 patients enrolled in this study with Class III maxillary deficiency, with an average age of 10.5±6 months, and allocated into three groups of seven patients each. Maxillary expansion was done with conventional Hyrax in Group I. Group II: RME with Hybrid Hyrax. Group III: skeletal four-point supported custom-made Hyrax with four palatal micro-implants and alternating rapid maxillary expansion and contraction. A cephalometric tracing of standardized cephalometric x-ray was performed for each patient before and after expansion for various linear and angular measurements and statistically analyzed. Results: SNA angle increased significantly (p ≤ 0.05) from pretreatment to post-expansion stage in all groups. There was a statistically significant difference between Groups II and III. When the three Groups were compared, a considerable forward movement of point A was detected in both Group I and Group II. The forward movement of point A, the angle of facial convexity and upper lip prominence improved considerably in GII. Conclusion: Hybrid Hyrax (Group II) showed a significant improvement in forward position of point A concomitant with a significant sagittal skeletal, dental and soft tissue profile improvement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interaction Between Subspinale and Two Expansion Protocols in Class III

Yousif

Elshenaway

abotaha

et al. 2021

Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies focusing on the Alt-RAMEC phase reported different results. Çelebi and Çelikdelen's 29 2D study reported that Point A moved forward by 0.9 mm in the RPE group, and by a smaller amount (0.44 mm) in the Alt-RAMEC group, which might partly be due to their modified Alt-RAMEC protocol (a 4-weekly sequence). Yilmaz et al 20 observed a significant forward movement of Point A (0.89 mm) after Alt-RAMEC, excluding the control and comparison groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Comparison of changes in the nasal cavity, pharyngeal airway, and maxillary sinus volumes after expansion and maxillary protraction with two protocols: Rapid palatal expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate and compare a series of volume changes in the nasal cavity (NC), nasopharynx, oropharynx, and maxillary sinuses (MS) in growing Class III patients after either rapid palatal expansion (RPE) or alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) followed by facemask (FM) therapy, by using conebeam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: Forty growing Class III patients were retrospectively selected and divided into two matched groups: RPE/FM (14 females, 6 males; mean age, 9.66 ± 1.23 years) and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups (14 females, 6 males; mean age, 10.28 ± 1.45 years). The anteroposterior and vertical displacements of Point A, the volumes of the NC, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, and MS were measured at different time points: pretreatment (T1), postexpansion (T2), and postprotraction (T3). Results: Both groups demonstrated significant maxilla advancement (by 1.3 mm) during expansion, with a statistically significant intergroup difference during protraction (RPE/ FM, 1.1 mm; Alt-RAMEC/FM, 2.4 mm; p < 0.05) and throughout the treatment (RPE/FM, 2.4 mm; Alt-RAMEC/FM, 3.7 mm; p < 0.05). NC and nasopharyngeal airway volumes increased significantly in both groups after expansion, protraction, and treatment. The oropharyngeal and MS volumes increased in both groups after protraction and posttreatment. However, no volumetric differences were observed between the two groups. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in airway volume changes, including NC, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal airway, and MS, between RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/ FM groups at different time points. Although there was significantly more forward movement after protraction in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group, the difference was deemed too small to be clinically relevant.

show abstract