Dentoskeletal effects of a removable appliance for expansion of the maxillary arch: a postero-anterior cephalometric study

Defraia, Efisio; Marinelli, Andrea; Baroni, Giulia; Tollaro, I

doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm079

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies about SME conducted by Defraia et al [18] in a sample of 6.2-year-old patients treated with removable appliance showed an increase in the maxillary width of about 4.48 mm, whereas Işeri et al [16] in sample of 14.57-year-old patients treated with a rigid acrylic maxillary expander for 4.08 months found an increase of about 2.47 mm. This can be due to the different skeletal maturity of the two samples according to Baccetti et al [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of dento-skeletal effects on posteroanterior cephalometry

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to compare the dento-skeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and mixed maxillary expansion (MME), assessed on posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms.MethodsTreatment groups consisted of 42 patients; mean age in RME group (n = 21,13 female and 8 male subjects) was 8.8 years ± 1.37 at T0 and 9.6 years ± 1.45 at T1 and mean age in MME group (n = 21, 12 female and 9 male patients) was 8.9 years ± 2.34 at T0 and 10.5 years ± 2.08 at T1. Seventeen bilateral anatomic landmarks, 16 linear (12 skeletal and 4 dental) and 4 angular measurements were assessed for each patient at T0 and T1. Data from the two groups were compared using independent sample t test (p < 0.05).ResultsAt T0, the groups were similar for all examined variables (p > 0.05). Significant and equal increase of lateronasal and maxillary and upper and lower molar widths (p < 0. 01) occurred in both groups at T1. Significant but different increases were observed for maxillary incisal, upper left first molar-lateroorbitale, and maxillary first molar angles (p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.05). Significant increases were reported for upper inter-incisal width apex (p < 0.001) and upper right first molar-lateroorbitale angle (p < 0.05) only in the RME group. At T1, differences in maxillary incisal angle (p < 0.05), upper left first molar-lateroorbitale, and maxillary first molar angles (p < 0.001) were noted.ConclusionsRME and MME were both effective to increase skeletal transverse dimensions by opening mid-palatal suture in growing patients, while MME was associated with minor dental side effects than RME.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Over the years, many methods have been used to expand the constricted maxilla, through rapid [3,4,10,14,15], semirapid [16], and slow expansion [5,7,17,18] based on the common aim for minimal dental and maximum skeletal effects [10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of dento-skeletal effects on posteroanterior cephalometry

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would include devices that utilize coil or wires springs, with representative examples being the Minne Expander [8] and the appliance presented by Defraia et al [9], respectively. Upon activation, these devices will exert a continuous, yet displacement-dependent, force as the maxilla widens.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Maxillary Expansion Appliance Activation Methods: Engineering and Clinical Perspectives

Romanyk

Lagravère²,

Toogood³

et al. 2010

Journal of Dental Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Review the reported activation methods of maxillary expansion devices for midpalatal suture separation from an engineering perspective and suggest areas of improvement. Materials and Methods. A literature search of Scopus and PubMed was used to determine current expansion methods. A U.S. and Canadian patent database search was also conducted using patent classification and keywords. Any paper presenting a new method of expansion was included. Results. Expansion methods in use, or patented, can be classified as either a screw- or spring-type, magnetic, or shape memory alloy expansion appliance. Conclusions. Each activation method presented unique advantages and disadvantages from both clinical and engineering perspectives. Areas for improvement still remain and are identified in the paper.

show abstract

“…Maxillary expansion can be performed with different methods: rapid maxillary expansion (RME) [15–17], semirapid maxillary expansion (SRME) [18], slow maxillary expansion (SME) [19–21] and mixed maxillary expansion (MME) [22–24]. Each treatment protocol is based on a different rationale, but all produce both skeletal and dental changes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of arch changes on dental casts

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAim of this retrospective observational study was to compare upper and lower dental changes in patients treated with Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME) and Mixed Maxillary Expansion (MME), assessed by dental cast analysis.MethodsTreatment groups consisted of 42 patients: the RME group (n = 21) consisted of 13 female and 8 male subjects with the mean age of 8.8 years ± 1.37 at T0 and 9.6 years ± 1.45 at T1; the MME group (n = 21) consisted of 12 female and 9 male patients with a mean age of 8.9 years ± 2.34 at T0 and 10.5 years ± 2.08 at T1. The upper and lower arch analysis was performed on four dental bilateral landmarks, on upper and lower casts; also upper and lower arch depths were measured. The groups were compared using independent sample t-test to estimate dental changes in upper and lower arches.ResultsBefore expansion treatment (T0), the groups were similar for all examined variables (p>0.05). In both RME and MME group, significant increments in all the variables for maxillary and mandibular arch widths were observed after treatment. No significant differences in maxillary and mandibular arch depths were observed at the end of treatment in both groups. An evaluation of the changes after RME and MME (T1) showed statistically significant differences in mandibular arch depth (p<0.001) and maxillary intercanine widths (p<0.05). Differences in maxillary arch depth and arch width measurements were not significant.ConclusionsRME and MME can be considered two effective treatment options to improve transverse arch dimensions and gain space in the dental arches. A greater lower arch expansion was observed in the MME group, which might be attributed to the “lip bumper effects” observed in the MME protocol.

show abstract

Dentoskeletal effects of a removable appliance for expansion of the maxillary arch: a postero-anterior cephalometric study

Cited by 14 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of dento-skeletal effects on posteroanterior cephalometry

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of dento-skeletal effects on posteroanterior cephalometry

Review of Maxillary Expansion Appliance Activation Methods: Engineering and Clinical Perspectives

Comparison between rapid and mixed maxillary expansion through an assessment of arch changes on dental casts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About