Manuel O Lagravère1, Connie P Ling2, Jeffrey Woo3, Winfried Harzer4, Paul W Major5, Jason P Carey6. 1. University of Alberta, Orthodontic Graduate Program, ECHA 5-524, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Electronic address: mlagravere@ualberta.ca. 2. Private Practice, Toronto, ON, Canada; Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 3. Computer Engineer, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Technical University of Dresden, Department of Orthodontics, Fetscherstr. 72, 01307 Dresden, Germany. 5. University of Alberta, Orthodontic Graduate Program, ECHA 5-524, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 6. University of Alberta, Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, T6G 10-265 Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this randomized clinical trial was to determine 3 dimensional skeletal and dental changes six months after the use of bone-anchored versus tooth-anchored rapid maxillary expanders in adolescents. The secondary aim was to determine the symmetrical or asymmetrical expansion pattern between both appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Fifty adolescents with skeletally constricted maxilla (mean age 13-14 years) were randomly assigned into: Dresden B-RME, Hyrax T-RME, or untreated control groups. CBCT scans were taken at initial and expander removal (6 months). Three-dimensional references and treatment landmarks were identified. Orthogonal distances were calculated from those landmarks. The main outcome was to compare skeletal and dental changes in each group and the secondary outcome was to verify if these changes were symmetric or not. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and repeated measure MANCOVA and MANOVA. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed significant skeletal and dental expansion compared to controls. T-RME group had greater mean inter-molar crown expansion (5.66mm) than the B-RME group (4.17mm). Both T-RME and B-RME groups showed significant skeletal maxillary expansion compared to controls (mean 1.27mm and 1.31mm respectively, both p<0.01), although no significant difference was found between both appliances. B-RME group showed a lower ratio of dental to skeletal expansion than T-RME group. T-RME showed a symmetrical expansion pattern, whereas the B-RME showed an asymmetrical pattern relative to mid-sagittal plane. The extent of molar crown expansion was 1.84mm greater on the TAD-side compared to the Implant-side. T-RME group showed significant anterior movement of the maxillary first premolar and molar (1.5mm, p<0.05), and vertical dental extrusion (1.8mm). No significant dental vertical or anterior-posterior changes were noted in the B-RME group. CONCLUSIONS: T-RME and B-RME produced similar amounts of skeletal expansion. B-RME group produced a lower component of dental expansion. Due to the Dresden B-RME configuration, asymmetrical expansion was noted.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this randomized clinical trial was to determine 3 dimensional skeletal and dental changes six months after the use of bone-anchored versus tooth-anchored rapid maxillary expanders in adolescents. The secondary aim was to determine the symmetrical or asymmetrical expansion pattern between both appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty adolescents with skeletally constricted maxilla (mean age 13-14 years) were randomly assigned into: Dresden B-RME, Hyrax T-RME, or untreated control groups. CBCT scans were taken at initial and expander removal (6 months). Three-dimensional references and treatment landmarks were identified. Orthogonal distances were calculated from those landmarks. The main outcome was to compare skeletal and dental changes in each group and the secondary outcome was to verify if these changes were symmetric or not. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and repeated measure MANCOVA and MANOVA. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed significant skeletal and dental expansion compared to controls. T-RME group had greater mean inter-molar crown expansion (5.66mm) than the B-RME group (4.17mm). Both T-RME and B-RME groups showed significant skeletal maxillary expansion compared to controls (mean 1.27mm and 1.31mm respectively, both p<0.01), although no significant difference was found between both appliances. B-RME group showed a lower ratio of dental to skeletal expansion than T-RME group. T-RME showed a symmetrical expansion pattern, whereas the B-RME showed an asymmetrical pattern relative to mid-sagittal plane. The extent of molar crown expansion was 1.84mm greater on the TAD-side compared to the Implant-side. T-RME group showed significant anterior movement of the maxillary first premolar and molar (1.5mm, p<0.05), and vertical dental extrusion (1.8mm). No significant dental vertical or anterior-posterior changes were noted in the B-RME group. CONCLUSIONS: T-RME and B-RME produced similar amounts of skeletal expansion. B-RME group produced a lower component of dental expansion. Due to the Dresden B-RME configuration, asymmetrical expansion was noted.