IADR Abstract Archives
Mandibular expansion : which appliance to choose?
Objectives: The aim of this work was to assess the amount of mandibular expansion using fixed or removable appliances.
Methods: In our study, 44 patients were selected and divided into tow groups each included 22 subjects: the first group was treated with Bihelix with mean a age of 13.5± 3.5 years and a sex ratio 2.75. The second group was treated with mandibular plate with a mean age of 10±3years and sex ratio of 0,9.
Three measurements were taken: intercanine,interpremolar and intermolar diameters using photoshop software (version Chicago 16). Athors criteria were used to assesss the amount of mandibular expansion. The correlation between the type appliance used and the gain in term of mandibular expansion was calculated using ANOVA Test. The result was considered siqnificant at p<0.05.
Results: For the intercanin sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 1.9 ±1.8mm against mandibular plate with a mean of 2.7±2.6mm (p=0.22). For the interpremolar sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 4.3mm±3 against mandibular plate with a mean of 3.8±3.2mm (p=0.45).
For the intermolar sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 4.4mm± 3,75 against mandibular plate with a mean of 3.48±3,38mm (p=0.22). When comparing the results, no statistical significant differences were recorded in term of mandibular expansion between the two used devices.
Conclusions: According to our results, bihelix mandibular plate appliances have the same effect on mandibular expansion ,however, it's crucial for the clinician to adapt the type of appliance that suites better to the clinical situation.
Methods: In our study, 44 patients were selected and divided into tow groups each included 22 subjects: the first group was treated with Bihelix with mean a age of 13.5± 3.5 years and a sex ratio 2.75. The second group was treated with mandibular plate with a mean age of 10±3years and sex ratio of 0,9.
Three measurements were taken: intercanine,interpremolar and intermolar diameters using photoshop software (version Chicago 16). Athors criteria were used to assesss the amount of mandibular expansion. The correlation between the type appliance used and the gain in term of mandibular expansion was calculated using ANOVA Test. The result was considered siqnificant at p<0.05.
Results: For the intercanin sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 1.9 ±1.8mm against mandibular plate with a mean of 2.7±2.6mm (p=0.22). For the interpremolar sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 4.3mm±3 against mandibular plate with a mean of 3.8±3.2mm (p=0.45).
For the intermolar sector, the mean value of gain using bihelix was 4.4mm± 3,75 against mandibular plate with a mean of 3.48±3,38mm (p=0.22). When comparing the results, no statistical significant differences were recorded in term of mandibular expansion between the two used devices.
Conclusions: According to our results, bihelix mandibular plate appliances have the same effect on mandibular expansion ,however, it's crucial for the clinician to adapt the type of appliance that suites better to the clinical situation.