Does mini-implant-supported rapid maxillary expansion cause less root resorption than traditional approaches? A micro-computed tomography study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the volume, amount, and localization of root resorption in the maxillary first premolars using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) after expansion with four different rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances. METHODS: In total, 20 patients who required RME and extraction of the maxillary first premolars were recruited for this study. The patients were divided into four groups according to the appliance used: miniimplant- supported hybrid RME appliance, hyrax RME appliance, acrylic-bonded RME appliance, and full-coverage RME appliance. The same activation protocol (one activation daily) was implemented in all groups. For each group, the left and right maxillary first premolars were scanned using micro-CT, and each root were divided into six regions. Resorption craters in the six regions were analyzed using special CTAn software for direct volumetric measurements. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: The hybrid expansion appliance resulted in the lowest volume of root resorption and the smallest number of craters (p < 0.001). In terms of overall root resorption, no significant difference was found among the other groups (p > 0.05). Resorption was greater on the buccal surface than on the lingual surface in all groups except the hybrid appliance group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that all expansion appliances cause root resorption, with resorption craters generally concentrated on the buccal surface. However, the mini-implant-supported hybrid RME appliance causes lesser root resorption than do other conventional appliances.

Does the rhythm and appliance type of rapid maxillary expansion have an effect on root resorption?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the volume, amount, and localization of root resorption in the upper first premolars by micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) after three different rapid maxillary expansion appliances and two different activation rhythms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were divided into three groups; Hyrax, acrylic cap splint (ACS), and full coverage acrylic bonded (FCAB) appliances. Each group was then divided into the following two subgroups: rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and semirapid maxillary expansion (SRME). After expansion was completed, the appliances were stabilized for 12 weeks during the retention period. For each group, 10 premolars (for a total of 60 premolars) were scanned with the micro-CT (SkyScan). The reconstructed 3D images of each root sample were divided into six regions. The resorption craters on these six different root surfaces were analyzed by special CTAn (SkyScan) software for direct volumetric measurements. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The total volume of root resorption was less with FCAB than with ACS and Hyrax (P < .001). In all groups, a greater volume of resorption was found on the buccal surface than on the lingual surface (P < .001). No significant differences were found between the RME and SRME groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All expansion appliances caused root resorption in the upper first premolar teeth, but FCAB may be safer in terms of root resorption. The resorption craters were generally concentrated on the buccal surface. There was no effect of activation rhythm on root resorption.