Comparison of traditional RPE with two types of micro-implant assisted RPE: CBCT study

Tooth-Bone-Borne Vs. Bone-Borne Palatal Expanders: A Systematic Review

“…This result is considerably expected because molars are included in the design of hybrid expanders, contrary to the bone-borne expanders. A similar result immediately after expansion was reported by Oh et al (29) in their retrospective CBCT study, where slightly less buccal tipping of molars was observed with bone-borne expander compared to hybrid expander. Similarly, Moon et al (28) found significant increase in molar buccal tipping in the hybrid group, but not the bone-borne group, 3 months post-expansion.…”

“…Screening resulted in exclusion of 504 records, and full texts of the remaining 10 articles were retrieved and analyzed according to the eligibility criteria. Nine articles were excluded for the following reasons: One study was a letter to the editor (27), two studies were retrospective (28,29), three studies were reviews (30)(31)(32), and three studies examined only one type of miniscrew-supported palatal expander (33)(34)(35).…”

“…Although hybrid and bone-borne expanders were initially described more than a decade ago (22,40), remarkably limited research has been carried out to compare both designs, and often the results were not in accord. The search through literature yielded three studies that compared the two designs; two were retrospective studies that used cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for comparison (28,29), and one was an RCT that employed digital dental casts (36). Ultimately, only the RCT by Canan and Senişik (36) was included in the current systematic review.…”

Three-dimensional evaluation of mid-facial soft tissue changes after expansion using micro-implant-supported maxillary skeletal expander

“…The mean separation at the PNS was about 81.17% of that at the ANS. This ratio demonstrates that MSE created an almost parallel split of the midpalatal suture, in agreement with previous studies [25,38]. The amount of separation at the midpalatal suture produced by MSE in this study (4.94 mm at the ANS and 4.01 mm at the PNS) was nearly equivalent to that in the study by Cantarella et al (4.8 mm and 4.3 mm at the ANS and PNS, respectively) and larger than that reported by Oh et al (4.59 mm and 3.31 mm at the ANS and PNS, respectively).…”

“…The amount of separation at the midpalatal suture produced by MSE in this study (4.94 mm at the ANS and 4.01 mm at the PNS) was nearly equivalent to that in the study by Cantarella et al (4.8 mm and 4.3 mm at the ANS and PNS, respectively) and larger than that reported by Oh et al (4.59 mm and 3.31 mm at the ANS and PNS, respectively). In Oh's study, because of the thin posterior part of the subject's palatal bone, micro-implants were positioned more anteriorly than in Cantarella's study whereas the micro-implants in our study were placed at similar positions indicated in the latter protocol [38]. In comparison with traditional RPE, MSE produced much greater suture opening, as compared with the findings of Lione et al using the modified Hyrax-type expander this appliance is located in the posterior portion of the hard palate, with 4 bicortical miniscrews positioned medial to the zygomatic buttress bones, allowing the opening force to be distributed along the entire suture length [25].…”