RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the transverse dental and skeletal changes in patients treated with bone-anchored palatal expander (bone-borne, BB) compared to patients treated with tooth and bone-anchored palatal expanders (tooth-bone-borne, TBB) using cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) and 3D image analysis. METHODS: The sample comprised 30 patients with transverse maxillary discrepancy treated with two different types of appliances: bone-borne (Group BB) and tooth-bone-borne (Group TBB) expanders. CBCT scans were acquired before (T1) and after completion of maxillary expansion (T2); the interval was 5.4 ± 3.4 and 6.2 ± 2.1 months between the T1 and the T2 scans of Group TBB (tooth-bone-borne) and Group BB (bone-borne), respectively. Transverse, anteroposterior and vertical linear and angular three-dimensional dentoskeletal changes were assessed after cranial base superimposition. RESULTS: Both groups displayed marked transverse skeletal expansion with a greater ratio of skeletal to dental changes. Greater changes at the nasal cavity, zygoma and orbital levels were found in Group BB. A relatively parallel sutural opening in an anterior-posterior direction was observed in Group TBB; however, the Group BB presented a somewhat triangular (V-shaped) opening of the suture that was wider anteriorly. Small downward-forward displacements were observed in both groups. Asymmetric expansion occurred in approximately 50% of the patients in both groups. CONCLUSION: Greater skeletal vs dental expansion ratio and expansion of the circummaxillary regions were found in Group BB, the group in which a bone-borne expander was used. Both groups presented skeletal and dental changes, with a similar amount of posterior palate expansion. Asymmetric expansion was observed in both groups.
Asunto(s)
Técnica de Expansión Palatina , Diente , Humanos , Adulto Joven , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico/métodos , Maxilar/diagnóstico por imagen , Hueso PaladarRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The objective was to determine the skeletal and dental changes with microimplant assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) appliances in growing (GR) and nongrowing (NG) patients using cone-beam computed tomography and 3-dimensional imaging analysis. METHODS: The sample consisted of 25 patients with transverse maxillary discrepancy treated with a maxillary skeletal expander, a type of MARPE appliance. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were taken before and after maxillary expansion; the interval was 6.0 ± 4.3 months. The sample was divided into GR and NG groups using cervical vertebral and midpalatal suture maturation. Linear and angular 3-dimensional dentoskeletal changes were assessed after cranial base superimposition. Groups were compared with independent-samples t test (P <0.05). RESULTS: Both groups displayed marked transverse changes with a similar ratio of skeletal to dental transverse changes and parallel sutural opening from the posterior nasal spine-anterior nasal spine; a similar amount of expansion occurred in the anterior and the posterior regions of the maxilla. The maxilla expanded skeletally without rotational displacements in both groups. The small downward-forward displacements were similar in both groups, except that the GR group had a significantly greater vertical displacement of the canines (GR, 1.7 ±1.0 mm; NG, 0.6 ± 0.8 mm; P = 0.02) and anterior nasal spine (GR, 1.1 ± 0.6 mm; NG, 0.5 ± 0.5 mm; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients with MARPE appliance is effective in GR and NG patients. Although greater skeletal and dental changes were observed in GR patients, a similar ratio of skeletal to dental transverse changes was observed in both groups.