INTRODUCTION: The aim of this community-based trial was to compare the effectiveness of the quad-helix appliance and removable plates for treating posterior crossbite. METHODS:Ninety-nine patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: quad-helix, expansion plate, and untreated. All subjects were in the mixed dentition, had posterior crosssbite, no sucking habits, no previous orthodontic treatment, and no Class III malocclusion. The following aspects were evaluated: posterior crossbite correction, maxillary and mandibular intermolar and intercanine expansions, length of treatment, cost-benefit analysis, success rate, and number of complications. RESULTS: The length of treatment and the costs were higher in the expansion plate group than in the quad-helix group. The success rates were similar for the quad-helix and the expansion plate groups, and the number of complications was higher in the quad-helix group. No self-correction was observed in the untreated group, and relapses occurred in both experimental groups. CONCLUSIONS: The average treatment time was significantly shorter and 11% less expensive than in the quad-helix group, making it the more cost-effective choice for treatment. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this community-based trial was to compare the effectiveness of the quad-helix appliance and removable plates for treating posterior crossbite. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: quad-helix, expansion plate, and untreated. All subjects were in the mixed dentition, had posterior crosssbite, no sucking habits, no previous orthodontic treatment, and no Class III malocclusion. The following aspects were evaluated: posterior crossbite correction, maxillary and mandibular intermolar and intercanine expansions, length of treatment, cost-benefit analysis, success rate, and number of complications. RESULTS: The length of treatment and the costs were higher in the expansion plate group than in the quad-helix group. The success rates were similar for the quad-helix and the expansion plate groups, and the number of complications was higher in the quad-helix group. No self-correction was observed in the untreated group, and relapses occurred in both experimental groups. CONCLUSIONS: The average treatment time was significantly shorter and 11% less expensive than in the quad-helix group, making it the more cost-effective choice for treatment. Copyright Â