ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To perform a comprehensive review of the literature to compare the effects of slow maxillary expansion (SME) and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on maxillary arch width in patients with bilateral cleft palate. METHODS: The databases include Medline, PubMed, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and (CDSR), OpenGrey, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant studies that met the eligibility criteria published before or on 31 October 2022. The search was confined to the English language. The selection of eligible studies and collection of data were performed independently. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials were available based on the search in the published literature. Both studies compared arch width between SME and RME in cleft palate patients and digitals casts and three-dimensional images used for the evaluation. A moderate risk of bias was evident in the available studies. CONCLUSIONS: Both SME and RME can achieve similar amounts of maxillary expansion in patients with bilateral cleft palate.
ABSTRACT
Background: Early diagnosis and interceptive treatment of the maxillary canine impaction is crucial as it reduces treatment complexity and decreases complications and adverse outcomes. Aim and Objectives. To determine the mean maxillary canine position among 9-10-year-old children and predict the risk of impaction of the maxillary canines. Methodology. Panoramic radiographs (PANs) of 289 healthy children aged between 9 and 10 years were observed where the average position of maxillary canines was related to the lateral incisor, sector locations, and angulations to the bicondylar line were traced. The average position was obtained by using descriptive statistics. One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test is done to predict the risk of canine impaction by comparing the data obtained to the average position from prior studies. Results: A total of 289 PANs (126 males and 163 females) were utilized for the analysis. The findings showed that the average position of the maxillary canines in our population was statistically different from the average position of nonimpacted canines in previous studies. However, on average, more than 85% of canines in our population were still located within the safe range of satisfactory position, with females showing slight predominance outside of the acceptable range. The mean scores of the angles between the right canine and lateral incisor were significantly higher among females than males (p = 0.001). Similarly, females had a significantly higher mean angle of the left canine than males (p < 0.001). In regard to the angles between the bicondylar line and permanent maxillary canine, the mean scores were not significantly different (p > 0.05) on both the left and right side. Conclusion: There is a low risk of impaction of maxillary canines in the Malaysian population. However, more retrospective studies using more radiographic and clinical indicators need to be done to confirm the risk of impaction further.