| Literature DB >> 35884030 |
Alessio Danilo Inchingolo1, Irene Ferrara1, Fabio Viapiano1, Anna Netti1, Merigrazia Campanelli1, Silvio Buongiorno1, Giulia Latini1, Vincenzo Carpentiere1, Anna Maria Ciocia1, Sabino Ceci1, Assunta Patano1, Fabio Piras1, Filippo Cardarelli1, Damiano Nemore1, Giuseppina Malcangi1, Angela Di Noia1, Antonio Mancini1, Angelo Michele Inchingolo1, Grazia Marinelli1, Biagio Rapone1, Ioana Roxana Bordea2, Antonio Scarano3, Felice Lorusso3, Daniela Di Venere1, Francesco Inchingolo1, Gianna Dipalma1.
Abstract
Aim: In the literature, many studies and articles are investigating new devices and approaches to achieve rapid palate expansion through the opening of the palatal suture, and evaluating the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects. The purpose of this review was to assess how palatal expansion is performed in adolescent patients with permanent dentition. Furthermore, it was reported as an example of successful orthodontic treatment of an 11-year-old female patient affected by maxillary skeletal transverse deficiency, in permanent dentition.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; adolescent patient; maxillary expansion; palatal expansion; permanent dentition
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884030 PMCID: PMC9317392 DOI: 10.3390/children9071046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
Figure 1Conventional appliance RME: TTB RME and TB RME.
Figure 2MARPE appliance: BB MARPE and TBB MARPE.
Summary of selected articles data.
| Author/ | Study Design | Sample Size | Data Collection | Average Age | Type of Appliance | Protocol of Expansion | Features of the Screw | Amout of Expansion Achieved (mm) | Outcomes | Retention Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gökçe, | Retrospective | 54 (25 M, 29 F) | Pretreatment (T0) and posttreatment (T1) Postero Anterior cephalometric radiographs | 13.28 ± 1.20 (TBB) | -TBB | First week 2 turns/day and then 1 turn/day | 9 mm Hyrax expansion screw (G&H Orthodontics, Franklin, IN, USA) | Intermolar width: | Skeletal changes are more evident in TTB and TBB groups | 3 months |
| Yildirim, 2018 | Observational | 20 (11 F, 9 M) | Micro CT device on premolar teeth after expansion and extraction | 11–16 | BB and TTB in the same patient using modified device | N.D. | Hyrax screw | N.D. | Root resorptions are more frequent in the TTB group, mostly in the apical and middle thirds | 3 months |
| Canan, 2017 | RCT | 47 | Superimposition of 3D digital maxillary dental models; | 12.63 ± 1.36 (TB) | -TB | 2 turns/day | 9 mm Hyrax; Lewa-Dental, Remchingen, Germany) | Mean turns = 26; | Dentoalveolar maxillary expansion with mild relapse in all groups; | 6 months |
| Silveira, | RCT | 34 | Digitally superimposed pre-treatment and post-retention 3D intraoral scans on the palatal rugae using the software 3DSlicer | 11–16 year | -Hyrax (TB) | 2 turns/day | −8 mm mini expander jackscrew (Dynaflex, Saint Ann, USA) | Mean turns = 30; | No significant differences in dental effects, impact on quality of life and pain perception | 6 months |
| Kavand, | Retrospective | 36 | CBCT at T0 before expansion and T1 post retention | 14.7 years (BB) | -BB | 2 turns/day | Jackscrew (Palex II Extra-Mini Expander, Su mmit Orthodontic Services, Munroe Falls, OH, USA) | Mean palatal width expansion | Increased volume of nasal cavity and nasopharynx; | 3 months |
| Alcin, 2021 | RCT | 20 (12 F, 8 M) | Micro-CT of maxillary first premolars | 12–15 | -TBB | 1turn/day | Hyrax screw | Mean turns = 34; | All expansion appliances cause root resorption, mostly on the buccal surface; | 3 months |
| Celenk-Koca, 2018 | RCT | 40 | CBCT evaluation of: | 13.84 ± 1.36 (TB) | -TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw | Molar width: | BB increased the maxillary suture opening more than 2.5 times than TB and did not result in any dental side effects | 6 months |
| Annarumma, 2021 | Retrospective | 24 (12 M, 12 F) | CBCT evaluation of: | 13.9 | -BB on 4 miniscrews | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw on BB | mean expansion screw = 8.12 ± 2.98 mm | BB expansion was effective with negligible dental effects | 12 months |
| Aljawad, 2021 | Case-control retrospective study | 33 | Upper airway dimensions (CBCT) | mean age 12.6 ± 1.8 | -TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) | N.D. | RME causes an increase in upper airway dimensions | 3 months |
| Torun, 2017 | Retrospective study | 28 (10 M, 18 F) | Measurements of soft tissue with CBCT at T0, T1 | 13.91 ± 1.8 | TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) | Mean Screw expansion: 9–10 mm | significant changes in facial soft tissues | 6 months |
| Lotfi, 2018 | Retrospective study | 20 (8 M, 12 F) | Measurements of upper airway volume changes with CBCT at T0, T1 | 12. 3 ± 1.9 | -TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw | N.D | Significant changes in nasal cavity volume | 6 months |
| Chun, 2022 | Prospective RCT | 40 | CBCT evaluation of: | 14.0 ± 4.3 years | -TB | 1 turn/day for 35 days | Hyrax expander (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) | 7 mm screw expansion | Greater increase in nasal width in the molar region (M-NW) and greater palatine foramen (GPF) in the MARPE group compared to the TB group; | 3 months |
| Jia, 2021 | Prospective RCT | 60 | CBCT and dental cast | 14.8 ± 1.5 (TB) 15.1 ± 1.6 (MARPE) | -MARPE | 2 turns/day | MARPE TTB: jackscrew (length: 12 mm; anatomic expander type: ‘‘s;’’ Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) | Mean expansion at maxillary basal bone | MARPE enabled more predictable and greater skeletal expansion, less buccal tipping and alveolar height loss on anchorage teeth. | 3 months |
| Akan, 2021 | RCT | 32 | Changes in soft tissues before RME (T0) and post-retention (T1) evaluated by stereophotogra mmetry | 13.4 ± 1.3 | -TB | First week 2 turns/day and then 1 turn | TB:Hyrax screw (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) | Mean numbers of activations were 25.25 ± 4.42 turns in hyrax group and 24.88 ± 3.40 turns in hybrid hyrax group. | Both appliances had effects on soft tissue profile; | 3 months |
| Lo Giudice, 2020 | Retrospective study | 33 | Linear and angular measurements in the coronal view to assess buccal inclinations and widths of mandibular posterior units. | 14.4 ± 1.3 (TB) | -TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax miniscrew (Palex II ExtraMini Expander, Su mmit Orthodontic Services, Munroe Falls, OH, USA; | 16–26 width | A clinically significant gain of space in the mandibular arch should not be expected after RME | 6 months |
| Cheung, 2021 | RCT | 44 | Measurements of upper airway volume changes with CBCT at T0, T1 | ND | -TB | 2 turns/day | Hyrax screw (Hyrax, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) | N.D. | No statistically significant difference across the TB and TBB | 6 months |
Figure 3Literature search Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Figure 4Pre-treatment photographs.
Figure 5Pre-treatment digital models registered the centric dental position.
Cephalometric measurements pre and post treatment. A: Point A; B: Point B; S: Saddle; N: Nasion; Pg: Pogonion, SN: Sella-Nasion Plane, MP: Mandibular plane; U1: Upper central incisor; IMPA: incisor mandibular plane angle.
| Measurements | Norm | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 74.5 ± 3 | 66 | 66.5 |
|
| 90° ± 3 | 84.4° | 85.8° |
|
| 74.5 ± 5 | 61.9 | 64 |
|
| 34 ± 3 | 30.9 | 31.4 |
|
| 47.5 ± 5 | 33.9 | 38.3 |
|
| 123° ± 5 | 120.4° | 118.8° |
|
| 143° ± 7 | 150.1° | 149.6° |
|
| 130° ± 7 | 128.6° | 129.1° |
|
| 52° ± 3 | 53° | 52.4° |
|
| 70° ± 2 | 75.6° | 76.7° |
|
| 113 ± 7 | 105.2 | 108.9 |
|
| 77.5 ± 7.5 | 62.6 | 67.3 |
|
| 61% ± 3 | 59.5% | 61.8% |
|
| 82° ± 2 | 80.9° | 79.7° |
|
| 80° ± 2 | 75.1° | 76° |
|
| 2° ± 2 | 5.8° | 3.7° |
|
| 110° ± 2 | 112.7° | 111.2° |
|
| 90° ± 3 | 96.9° | 97.8° |
Figure 6Pre-treatment lateral cephalogram and panoramic radiograph.
Figure 7Through CBCT the morphology of the midpalatal suture, can be evaluated. In this case, identified as stage C.
Figure 8Bonding of the lower arch using the In-Ovation system.
Figure 9Digital planning with Easy Driver® protocol.
Figure 10Digital plan of the TADs insertion guide.
Figure 11Treatment flow:(A) Miniscrew guide fitting; (B) Occlusal view of miniscrew; (C) Appliance positioning; (D) Occlusal view after active expansion; (E) The finishing stage of treatment.
Figure 12Post-treatment facial and intraoral photographs.
Figure 13Post-treatment digital model.
Figure 14(A) Comparison and (B) superimposition of digital maxillary models before and after treatment.
Figure 15Post-treatment lateral cephalogram and panoramic radiograph.
Figure 16Cephalometric superimpositions (blue, pre treatment; red, post treatment).