Differential Benefit of Two Different Tooth-Borne Rapid Maxillary Expansion Appliances in Female Subjects
- PMID: 30206564
- PMCID: PMC6124886
- DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2018.17051
Differential Benefit of Two Different Tooth-Borne Rapid Maxillary Expansion Appliances in Female Subjects
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of tooth-borne acrylic-bonded rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances with or without the anterior teeth anchorage on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures, as well as soft tissues.
Methods: This study included 44 patients who were treated with two different tooth-borne bonded acrylic RME appliances. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before the treatment (T0) and in the post-retention (T1) phase of the RME treatment. The posterior-bonded RME appliance group and full-bonded RME appliance group were created as the two different groups of treatment. The following statistical analyses were performed: intra- and inter-group comparisons were made using the paired t-test, Wilcoxon test, independent t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test for normal and non-normal distribution data.
Results: Significant increases were observed in R1-A, R1-ANS, R1-U1, R1-AR, R1-St, R1-Li, and R1-Pn in both groups. R1-PNS, R1-Ls, R1-Sn, and R1-B' were found to be significantly larger at T1 than at T0 in the posterior-bonded RME appliance group. R2-A, R2-ANS, R2-L1, R2-A', and R2-Pn were significantly larger at T1 than at T0 in the full-bonded RME appliance group. The R2-A' was significantly different between the groups.
Conclusion: The soft tissue A point appears to be the most important differing matter between the two different RME appliances, and a full acrylic-bonded RME appliance may be beneficial for subjects with a maxillary retrognathic profile.
Keywords: Rapid maxillary expansion; growing subjects; soft tissue profile; tooth-borne expander.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Comparison of dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes between tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne hybrid nonsurgical rapid maxillary expansions in adults: a retrospective observational study.BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec 18;21(1):658. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-02008-x. BMC Oral Health. 2021. PMID: 34922526 Free PMC article.
-
A postero-anterior cephalometric evaluation of different rapid maxillary expansion appliances.J World Fed Orthod. 2021 Sep;10(3):112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.04.002. Epub 2021 May 24. J World Fed Orthod. 2021. PMID: 34031017
-
Skeletal alterations associated with the use of bonded rapid maxillary expansion appliance.Braz Dent J. 2011;22(4):334-9. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000400013. Braz Dent J. 2011. PMID: 21861035
-
Do different maxillary expansion appliances influence the outcomes of the treatment?Eur J Orthod. 2018 Jan 23;40(1):97-106. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx035. Eur J Orthod. 2018. PMID: 28486682
-
Tooth-borne versus bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion for transverse maxillary deficiency: A systematic review.Int Orthod. 2019 Sep;17(3):425-436. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jul 4. Int Orthod. 2019. PMID: 31280998
Cited by
-
Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 24;12(12):CD000979. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000979.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34951927 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Lux CJ, Conradt C, Burden D, Komposch G. Dental arch widths and mandibular-maxillary base widths in Class II malocclusions between early mixed and permanent dentitions. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:674–85. - PubMed
-
- Angell EC. Irregularities of teeth and their treatment. San Francisco Medical Press. 1860:181–5.
-
- Haas AJ. Rapid Expansion of the Maxillary Dental Arch and Nasal Cavity by Opening the Midpalatal Suture. Angle Orthod. 1961;32:73–89.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials