Arthur César de Medeiros Alves1, Guilherme Janson2, James A Mcnamara3, José Roberto Pereira Lauris4, Daniela Gamba Garib5. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: arthurcesar_88@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, School of Medicine, and Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich; Private practice, Ann Arbor, Mich. 4. Department of Public Health, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School and Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this 2-arm parallel trial was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the Hyrax expander in the mixed dentition. METHODS:Patients aged 7-11 years with maxillary dental arch constriction and Class I or Class II sagittal relationships were randomly allocated into 2 study groups. The experimental group comprised 22 patients (10 males, 12 females) with a mean age of 8.46 years treated with the EDO. The comparison group was composed of 24 patients (6 males, 18 females), mean age of 8.92 years treated with the conventional Hyrax expander. One complete turn per day for 6 days was performed for the posterior screw of the EDO and for the Hyrax expander. The anterior screw of the EDO was activated 1 complete turn per day for 10 days. The primary outcomes were the anterior opening of the midpalatal suture, changes on the interincisal diastema width, maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, inclination of maxillary posterior teeth and on dental arch shape, and the amount of differential expansion in the anterior region compared with the posterior region of the maxillary dental arch. Computer-generated randomization was used. Allocation was concealed with sequentially, numbered, sealed, and opaque envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Occlusal radiographs of the maxilla were obtained at the end of the active expansion phase (T2). Intraoral photographs were obtained immediately pre-expansion (T1) and at T2. Digital dental models were obtained at T1 and 6 months after the active expansion period (T3). Intergroup comparisons of T1-T2 changes were performed using multiple linear regression analysis (P < 0.05). The independent variables were both treatment and the starting forms. Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was applied. RESULTS: The experimental group showed a significantly greater opening of the anterior region of the midpalatal suture, a greater increase of the interincisal diastema width, and greater increases of the intercanine distance and inter-first deciduous molar distance than the Hyrax expander. The experimental group showed a significant differential expansion between the anterior and posterior regions, whereas the Hyrax group produced a similar expansion in the canine and molar regions. Serious harm was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The EDO was capable of promoting greater orthopedic and dental changes in the anterior region of the maxilla than the conventional Hyrax expander. Similarity between the 2 expanders was observed for changes in the posterior region width, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, and posterior teeth inclination.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this 2-arm parallel trial was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the Hyrax expander in the mixed dentition. METHODS:Patients aged 7-11 years with maxillary dental arch constriction and Class I or Class II sagittal relationships were randomly allocated into 2 study groups. The experimental group comprised 22 patients (10 males, 12 females) with a mean age of 8.46 years treated with the EDO. The comparison group was composed of 24 patients (6 males, 18 females), mean age of 8.92 years treated with the conventional Hyrax expander. One complete turn per day for 6 days was performed for the posterior screw of the EDO and for the Hyrax expander. The anterior screw of the EDO was activated 1 complete turn per day for 10 days. The primary outcomes were the anterior opening of the midpalatal suture, changes on the interincisal diastema width, maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, inclination of maxillary posterior teeth and on dental arch shape, and the amount of differential expansion in the anterior region compared with the posterior region of the maxillary dental arch. Computer-generated randomization was used. Allocation was concealed with sequentially, numbered, sealed, and opaque envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Occlusal radiographs of the maxilla were obtained at the end of the active expansion phase (T2). Intraoral photographs were obtained immediately pre-expansion (T1) and at T2. Digital dental models were obtained at T1 and 6 months after the active expansion period (T3). Intergroup comparisons of T1-T2 changes were performed using multiple linear regression analysis (P < 0.05). The independent variables were both treatment and the starting forms. Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was applied. RESULTS: The experimental group showed a significantly greater opening of the anterior region of the midpalatal suture, a greater increase of the interincisal diastema width, and greater increases of the intercanine distance and inter-first deciduous molar distance than the Hyrax expander. The experimental group showed a significant differential expansion between the anterior and posterior regions, whereas the Hyrax group produced a similar expansion in the canine and molar regions. Serious harm was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The EDO was capable of promoting greater orthopedic and dental changes in the anterior region of the maxilla than the conventional Hyrax expander. Similarity between the 2 expanders was observed for changes in the posterior region width, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, and posterior teeth inclination.