Jan Hourfar1,2, Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger3,4, Björn Ludwig4,5, Julia Spindler4, Jörg Alexander Lisson6. 1. Orthodontic Practice, Reinheim, Germany. 2. Department of Orthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Orthodontic Practice, Tönisvorst, Germany. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Kirrberger Strasse 100, 66424, Homburg/Saar, Germany. 5. Orthodontic Practice, Traben-Trarbach, Germany. 6. Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Kirrberger Strasse 100, 66424, Homburg/Saar, Germany. joerg.lisson@uniklinikum-saarland.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare cephalometric changes resulting from treatment with two appliances for rapid maxillary expansion: (1) a strictly tooth-borne appliance and (2) a combined tooth- and bone-borne appliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 100 patients were analyzed by cephalometry. Of these patients, 50 were treated with strictly tooth-borne and another 50 with combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances. Mean pretreatment age was 13.04 ± 4.82 years, and mean treatment duration was 7.12 ± 2.37 months. To identify any implications for clinical therapy, additional subgroups were formed based on the pretreatment cephalometric findings for skeletal Class I (0° < ANB ≤ 4°) or Class III (ANB ≤0°). Paired t-tests were used for intragroup and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for intergroup comparisons. Results were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Both appliance types resulted in significant cephalometric changes in the maxilla and mandible. Compared to the strictly tooth-borne appliances, the combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances were found to cause more pronounced advancement of the maxilla (SNA angle) notably among the Class III patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid (combined tooth- and bone-borne) appliances for rapid maxillary expansion might be preferable in the treatment of skeletal Class III patients, since they possibly exert a more pronounced skeletal effect on the sagittal position of the maxilla.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare cephalometric changes resulting from treatment with two appliances for rapid maxillary expansion: (1) a strictly tooth-borne appliance and (2) a combined tooth- and bone-borne appliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 100 patients were analyzed by cephalometry. Of these patients, 50 were treated with strictly tooth-borne and another 50 with combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances. Mean pretreatment age was 13.04 ± 4.82 years, and mean treatment duration was 7.12 ± 2.37 months. To identify any implications for clinical therapy, additional subgroups were formed based on the pretreatment cephalometric findings for skeletal Class I (0° < ANB ≤ 4°) or Class III (ANB ≤0°). Paired t-tests were used for intragroup and analysis of variance (ANOVA) for intergroup comparisons. Results were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Both appliance types resulted in significant cephalometric changes in the maxilla and mandible. Compared to the strictly tooth-borne appliances, the combined tooth- and bone-borne appliances were found to cause more pronounced advancement of the maxilla (SNA angle) notably among the Class III patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid (combined tooth- and bone-borne) appliances for rapid maxillary expansion might be preferable in the treatment of skeletal Class III patients, since they possibly exert a more pronounced skeletal effect on the sagittal position of the maxilla.
Entities:
Keywords:
Analysis of cephalograms; Angle class I; Angle class III; Cephalometric study; Rapid maxillary expansion
Authors: Brett J Garrett; Joseph M Caruso; Kitichai Rungcharassaeng; James R Farrage; Jay S Kim; Guy D Taylor Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.650