INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective longitudinal clinical study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term changes in dental-arch dimensions in patients treated with the acrylic splint rapid maxillary expander in the early mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. METHODS: The dental casts of 51 consecutively treated patients (TG) were compared with those of 26 untreated controls (CG) at 3 different times: pretreatment (T1), after expansion and fixed appliance therapy (T2), and at long-term observation (T3). The mean ages for the TG were 8 years 10 months at T1, 13 years 10 months at T2, and 19 years 9 months at T3. Arch widths, arch depth, arch perimeter, and molar angulation were assessed in all subjects at all observation times. T1-T2, T2-T3, and T1-T3 changes were compared statistically in the TG with respect to the corresponding CG. RESULTS: Treatment with an acrylic splint RME followed by fixed appliances produced significantly favorable short-term and long-term changes in almost all maxillary and mandibular arch measurements. The amount of change in both maxillary and mandibular intermolar and intercanine widths fully corrected the initial discrepancies. Approximately 4 mm of long-term relative increase in maxillary arch perimeter, and 2.5 mm additional maintenance of mandibular arch perimeter were observed in the TG compared with the CG. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that this protocol is effective and stable for the treatment of constricted maxillary arches, and can relieve modest deficiencies in arch perimeter.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective longitudinal clinical study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term changes in dental-arch dimensions in patients treated with the acrylic splint rapid maxillary expander in the early mixed dentition followed by fixed appliances in the permanent dentition. METHODS: The dental casts of 51 consecutively treated patients (TG) were compared with those of 26 untreated controls (CG) at 3 different times: pretreatment (T1), after expansion and fixed appliance therapy (T2), and at long-term observation (T3). The mean ages for the TG were 8 years 10 months at T1, 13 years 10 months at T2, and 19 years 9 months at T3. Arch widths, arch depth, arch perimeter, and molar angulation were assessed in all subjects at all observation times. T1-T2, T2-T3, and T1-T3 changes were compared statistically in the TG with respect to the corresponding CG. RESULTS: Treatment with an acrylic splint RME followed by fixed appliances produced significantly favorable short-term and long-term changes in almost all maxillary and mandibular arch measurements. The amount of change in both maxillary and mandibular intermolar and intercanine widths fully corrected the initial discrepancies. Approximately 4 mm of long-term relative increase in maxillary arch perimeter, and 2.5 mm additional maintenance of mandibular arch perimeter were observed in the TG compared with the CG. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that this protocol is effective and stable for the treatment of constricted maxillary arches, and can relieve modest deficiencies in arch perimeter.