Dental arch changes comparison between expander with differential opening and fan-type expander: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Summary Objectives To compare posterior crossbite correction frequency and dentoalveolar changes of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the fan-type expander (FE). Trial design Two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. Methods Forty-eight patients from 7 to 11 years of age were allocated into two groups. Twenty-four patients were treated with the EDO and 24 patients were treated with the FE. Block randomization was performed. The study was single blind. Digital dental models were acquired before treatment and 6 months after rapid maxillary expansion. The primary outcomes were crossbite correction rate and maxillary arch width changes. Secondary outcomes were interincisal diastema, arch perimeter, length, size and shape, and mandibular dental arch changes. Results The final sample comprised 24 patients (13 female and 11 male; mean initial age of 7.62 years) in the EDO group and 24 patients (14 female and 10 male; mean initial age of 7.83 years) in the FE group. The crossbites were corrected in 100 per cent of subjects from EDO group and in 75 per cent of patients in FE group. EDO showed greater increases in maxillary intermolar region (P < 0.001), while the FE demonstrated greater increases in the intercanine distance (P = 0.008). Increase in mandibular inter-first permanent molar distance was slightly greater in the EDO group (mean difference of 0.8 mm). Changes in arch length and perimeter were similar in both groups. Both expanders changed the maxillary arch shape. The post-treatment arch shape was larger in the anterior region for FE and in the posterior region in the EDO group. Harms Discomfort during activation was reported by 54 per cent of the participants. A temporary change in the nasal bridge was reported by one patient from FE group. Conclusions Maxillary arch width and shape changes were distinct between the EDO and the FE. Greater transversal increases of the anterior and posterior regions were observed for the FE and the EDO, respectively. A slightly greater mandibular spontaneous expansion was observed for the EDO only at the molar region. Trial registration NCT03705871.

Immediate skeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion at midpalatal suture opening with Differential, Hyrax and Haas expanders

“…9,10 More recently, EDO was tested for RME in non-cleft patients, and it seems to be an alternative to treat early posterior crossbite and maxillary constrictions. 11,12 No previous studies compared the immediate effects of RME with EDO, Hyrax-type and Haas-type maxillary expanders. Occlusal radiography is a simple examination that may conffirm the opening of the midpalatal suture, and its main advantage over cone-beam computed tomography is that it presents lower radiation and reduced biological and financial cost for the patient.…”

New Materials for Orthodontic Interceptive Treatment in Primary to Late Mixed Dentition. A Retrospective Study Using Elastodontic Devices

“…Elastodontics is an interceptive therapy that uses removable appliances made with silicone elastomer to produce light and biological elastic forces to correct malocclusions, correcting the position of the teeth and potentially affecting growth [ 7 , 8 ]. In this regard, they have been designed mainly for the treatment of orthopedic—orthodontic problems of the evolutionary age and, therefore, are used in deciduous or mixed dentition [ 9 ], with the assumption of improving sagittal and vertical relations and the incisors’ alignment at the same time.…”

Evaluation of The Treatment Outcome of Cleft Palate Patients Treated with Differential Opening Expander with Alt-RAMEC Protocol and Facemask : (a cohort clinical study )

“…Camila Massaro & Daniela Garib reposted two study that compare the EDO and the FE one study using digital dental models and the other using CBCT showed distinct maxillary arch width and shape changes after RME. The EDO showed greater dentoalveolar expansion in the molar region, while the FE produced greater intercanine distance increase [11,12].…”

“…Other comparison between the EDO and the FE showed that the EDO showed greater transverse skeletal expansion compared to the FE, with similar vertical and anteroposterior effects and greater dentoalveolar expansion in the molar region, while the FE produced greater increase in intercanine distance [11,12].…”