RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The literature shows no consensus on whether two- or three-segment surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion is the best operative technique. METHODS: The present clinical trial was designed to compare the outcome of two- and three-segment osteotomy surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion. Thirty-two adult patients with transverse maxillary deficiency greater than or equal to 5 mm were randomly assigned to two- and three-segment groups (n = 16). Dimensional and psychological assessments (Oral Health Impact Profile and Brazilian Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire) were carried out before surgical intervention and at one of the following time points: completion of expansion, removal of expanding device, 6 months after completion of expansion, or 10 months after completion of expansion. Dimensional assessments for asymmetric expansion of the maxilla and for changes in the area and volume of the palatine vault were performed on digital data from tomographic and laser scanning with the aid of an engineering inspection software. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in asymmetry or stability outcomes between groups. The psychological benefit provided by the three-segment technique did not spread through the domains of the quality-of-life questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that three-segment surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion outcomes do not exceed those obtained with its two-segment counterpart regarding symmetry of maxillary expansion and stability of area and volume of the palatine vault. Furthermore, psychological nuances evidenced in two- and three-segment groups with the tools used play a limited, short-lasting role, or a specific, more sensitive assessment tool needs to be developed. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
