OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare two treatment protocols to correct anterior dental crossbite in the mixed dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty children, 8-10 years of age, participated. Individuals were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 15 children treated with an upper removable appliance with finger springs; group 2, 15 children treated by bonding resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars. The 30 participants were evaluated before treatment (T1) and 12 months after treatment began (T2). The variables evaluated included overjet, perimeter of the maxillary arch, intercanine distances in the maxilla and mandible, SNA, SNB, ANB, and U1.NA. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-test and Student's t-test. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were also calculated. RESULTS: Group 1 showed a significant increase in overjet ( P < .001), intercanine distance in the maxilla ( P = .006), intercanine distance in the mandible ( P = .031), and U1.NA ( P = .002). Group 2 showed a significant increase in overjet ( P = .008), intercanine distance in the mandible ( P = .005), and U1.NA ( P < .001). For all the evaluated variables, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed between the two protocols: use of a removable maxillary biteplate with finger springs and bonding of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars, for the correction of anterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare two treatment protocols to correct anterior dental crossbite in the mixed dentition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty children, 8-10 years of age, participated. Individuals were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 15 children treated with an upper removable appliance with finger springs; group 2, 15 children treated by bonding resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars. The 30 participants were evaluated before treatment (T1) and 12 months after treatment began (T2). The variables evaluated included overjet, perimeter of the maxillary arch, intercanine distances in the maxilla and mandible, SNA, SNB, ANB, and U1.NA. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-test and Student's t-test. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were also calculated. RESULTS: Group 1 showed a significant increase in overjet ( P < .001), intercanine distance in the maxilla ( P = .006), intercanine distance in the mandible ( P = .031), and U1.NA ( P = .002). Group 2 showed a significant increase in overjet ( P = .008), intercanine distance in the mandible ( P = .005), and U1.NA ( P < .001). For all the evaluated variables, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed between the two protocols: use of a removable maxillary biteplate with finger springs and bonding of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement bite pads on the lower first molars, for the correction of anterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.