IADR Abstract Archives
The Comparison of Different Rapid Maxillary Expansion Devices From Periodontal Tissue Health and Root Resorption Perspectives
Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze and compare the effects of two different rapid maxillary expansion (RME) devices on periodontal structures and dental roots in three dimensions.
Methods: The sample comprised of pre and post-treatment CT scans of 20 subjects (10 banded and 10 bonded acrylic expanders), mean age 14.1±1.8 years, that were previously treated for posterior cross-bite. Images were digitized using Mimics V.18 (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Landmarks were identified on first and second premolars and first molars to compile measurements of inter-arch widths, dental angulation, alveolar bone thicknesses and bone heights as well as root measurements for both left and right teeth. Comparisons were made using paired t-tests of pre and post-expansion measurements for both appliances, and before and after comparison of expansion of both bonded and banded appliances.
Results: Statistically significant changes were observed between the bonded and banded expanders with an increase in angulation of posterior teeth at left segment only in bonded appliances (p<.001 -.003). Lingual cortex width increases were statistically significant in both appliances in the anterior segment (p < .03 - .007); with diminishing effects felt posteriorly (p< .02 – 0.7) toward the molars. The decreases in the buccal cortex widths of posterior teeth were not significant for all teeth bilaterally. No significant differences were observed from a root resorption perspective in either appliance. Also, even though no statistically significant differences were observed in lingual and buccal alveolar heights in general, there was a decrease trend for both measurements in both devices.
Conclusions: Banded and bonded expanders have similar effects from periodontal and root resorption perspectives. Keeping in mind that these appliances have different possible effects on root angulation and cortex width, these variables should not play a critical role in selection of a specific type of device used for rapid maxillary expansion.
Methods: The sample comprised of pre and post-treatment CT scans of 20 subjects (10 banded and 10 bonded acrylic expanders), mean age 14.1±1.8 years, that were previously treated for posterior cross-bite. Images were digitized using Mimics V.18 (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Landmarks were identified on first and second premolars and first molars to compile measurements of inter-arch widths, dental angulation, alveolar bone thicknesses and bone heights as well as root measurements for both left and right teeth. Comparisons were made using paired t-tests of pre and post-expansion measurements for both appliances, and before and after comparison of expansion of both bonded and banded appliances.
Results: Statistically significant changes were observed between the bonded and banded expanders with an increase in angulation of posterior teeth at left segment only in bonded appliances (p<.001 -.003). Lingual cortex width increases were statistically significant in both appliances in the anterior segment (p < .03 - .007); with diminishing effects felt posteriorly (p< .02 – 0.7) toward the molars. The decreases in the buccal cortex widths of posterior teeth were not significant for all teeth bilaterally. No significant differences were observed from a root resorption perspective in either appliance. Also, even though no statistically significant differences were observed in lingual and buccal alveolar heights in general, there was a decrease trend for both measurements in both devices.
Conclusions: Banded and bonded expanders have similar effects from periodontal and root resorption perspectives. Keeping in mind that these appliances have different possible effects on root angulation and cortex width, these variables should not play a critical role in selection of a specific type of device used for rapid maxillary expansion.
2631102_File000001.jpg