OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effects on upper dental arch size and shape after maxillary expansion with Hyrax, Quad-helix, and a differential opening expander in bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five BCLP patients were divided into three groups: Hyrax (H), Quad-helix (QH), and Expander with differential opening (EDO). Digital models were obtained before (T1) and after 6 months (T2) of maxillary expansion. Twelve landmarks were placed by one investigator on T1 and T2 dental models of each group, and x,y coordinates for each landmark were collected. For dental arch size analysis, centroid size of each dental arch at T1 and T2 was calculated from raw coordinates and was used as the measure of size. Procrustes Analysis was performed for dental arch shape analysis. Analysis of variance was used to compare the groups for size and shape differences (P < .05). RESULTS: There were no significant dental arch size differences among the expanders at T1 or T2. Differences in arch shape were found between all groups at T2. Intragroup arch shape showed a significant variation for the QH and EDO groups. while it remained stable in the H group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the QH and the EDO create dental arch shape changes with greater intercanine than intermolar increase. The H does not change the dental arch shape.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effects on upper dental arch size and shape after maxillary expansion with Hyrax, Quad-helix, and a differential opening expander in bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five BCLP patients were divided into three groups: Hyrax (H), Quad-helix (QH), and Expander with differential opening (EDO). Digital models were obtained before (T1) and after 6 months (T2) of maxillary expansion. Twelve landmarks were placed by one investigator on T1 and T2 dental models of each group, and x,y coordinates for each landmark were collected. For dental arch size analysis, centroid size of each dental arch at T1 and T2 was calculated from raw coordinates and was used as the measure of size. Procrustes Analysis was performed for dental arch shape analysis. Analysis of variance was used to compare the groups for size and shape differences (P < .05). RESULTS: There were no significant dental arch size differences among the expanders at T1 or T2. Differences in arch shape were found between all groups at T2. Intragroup arch shape showed a significant variation for the QH and EDO groups. while it remained stable in the H group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the QH and the EDO create dental arch shape changes with greater intercanine than intermolar increase. The H does not change the dental arch shape.
Authors: Omar Gabriel da Silva Filho; José Valladares Neto; Leopoldino Capelloza Filho; José Alberto de Souza Freitas Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2003-03
Authors: Daniela Garib; Felicia Miranda; Juan Martin Palomo; Fernando Pugliese; José Carlos da Cunha Bastos; Alexandre Magno Dos Santos; Guilherme Janson Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.079