OBJECTIVES: To compare transverse skeletal changes produced by rapid (RME) and slow (SME) maxillary expansion using low-dose computed tomography. The null hypothesis was that SME and RME are equally effective in producing skeletal maxillary expansion in patients with posterior crossbite. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This study was carried out at the Department of Oral Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. Twelve patients (seven males, five females, mean age ± SD: 10.3 ± 2.5 years) were allocated to the SMEgroup and 14 patients (six males, eight females, mean age ± SD: 9.7 ± 1.5 years) to the RME group. MATERIALS AND METHODS:All patients received a two-band palatal expander and were randomly allocated to either RME or SME. Low-dose computed tomography was used to identify skeletal and dental landmarks and to measure transverse maxillary changes with treatment. RESULTS: A significant increase in skeletal transverse diameters was found in both SME and RME groups (anterior expansion = 2.2 ± 1.4 mm, posterior expansion = 2.2 ± 0.9 mm, pterygoid expansion = 0.9 ± 0.8 mm). No significant differences were found between groups at anterior (SME = 1.9 ± 1.3 mm; RME = 2.5 ± 1.5 mm) or posterior (SME = 1.9 ± 1.0 mm; RME = 2.4 ± 0.9 mm) locations, while a statistically significant difference was measured at the pterygoid processes (SME = 0.6 ± 0.6 mm; RME = 1.2 ± 0.9 mm, p = 0.04), which was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Rapid maxillary expansion is not more effective than SME in expanding the maxilla in patients with posterior crossbite.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare transverse skeletal changes produced by rapid (RME) and slow (SME) maxillary expansion using low-dose computed tomography. The null hypothesis was that SME and RME are equally effective in producing skeletal maxillary expansion in patients with posterior crossbite. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This study was carried out at the Department of Oral Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Italy. Twelve patients (seven males, five females, mean age ± SD: 10.3 ± 2.5 years) were allocated to the SME group and 14 patients (six males, eight females, mean age ± SD: 9.7 ± 1.5 years) to the RME group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients received a two-band palatal expander and were randomly allocated to either RME or SME. Low-dose computed tomography was used to identify skeletal and dental landmarks and to measure transverse maxillary changes with treatment. RESULTS: A significant increase in skeletal transverse diameters was found in both SME and RME groups (anterior expansion = 2.2 ± 1.4 mm, posterior expansion = 2.2 ± 0.9 mm, pterygoid expansion = 0.9 ± 0.8 mm). No significant differences were found between groups at anterior (SME = 1.9 ± 1.3 mm; RME = 2.5 ± 1.5 mm) or posterior (SME = 1.9 ± 1.0 mm; RME = 2.4 ± 0.9 mm) locations, while a statistically significant difference was measured at the pterygoid processes (SME = 0.6 ± 0.6 mm; RME = 1.2 ± 0.9 mm, p = 0.04), which was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Rapid maxillary expansion is not more effective than SME in expanding the maxilla in patients with posterior crossbite.