Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction: The purposes of this study were to analyze and compare the immediate effects of rapid and slow
maxillary expansion protocols, accomplished by Haas-type palatal expanders activated in different frequencies
of activation on the positioning of the maxillary rst permanent molars and on the buccal alveolar bones of these
teeth with cone-beam computerized tomography. Methods: The sample consisted of 33 children (18 girls, 15
boys; mean age, 9 years) randomly distributed into 2 groups: rapid maxillary expansion (n 5 17) and slow maxillary expansion (n 5 16). Patients in the rapid maxillary expansion group received 2 turns of activation (0.4 mm)
per day, and those in the slow maxillary expansion group received 2 turns of activation (0.4 mm) per week until 8
mm of expansion was achieved in both groups. Cone-beam computerized tomography images were taken
before treatment and after stabilization of the jackscrews. Data were gathered through a standardized
analysis of cone-beam computerized tomography images. Intragroup statistical analysis was accomplished
with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, and intergroup statistical analysis was accomplished with analysis of
variance. Linear relationships, among all variables, were determined by Spearman correlation. Results and
Conclusions: Both protocols caused buccal displacement of the maxillary rst permanent molars, which had
more bodily displacement in the slow maxillary expansion group, whereas more inclination was observed in
the rapid maxillary expansion group. Vertical and horizontal bone losses were found in both groups; however,
the slow maxillary expansion group had major bone loss. Periodontal modications in both groups should be
carefully considered because of the reduction of spatial resolution in the cone-beam computerized
tomography examinations after stabilization of the jackscrews. Modications in the frequency of activation of
the palatal expander might inuence the dental and periodontal effects of palatal expansion. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:633-44)
Brunetto et al
634
Brunetto et al
635
Brunetto et al
636
Fig 3. A, Positioning of the blue line on the axial section following the direction of the buccolingual long
axis of the root; B, adjustment of the inclination of the blue line following the long axis of the mesiobuccal
root by the sagittal section; C, positioning of the buccal surface of the root parallel to the tomographic
vertical plane by the coronal section; D, the standard image derived in the coronal section.
Brunetto et al
637
Denition
Distance between the buccal CEJ and the most occlusal point of the buccal
alveolar crest
Distance between the buccal cusp tip and the most occlusal point of the
buccal alveolar crest
Distance between the outer surface of the buccal alveolar plate and the outer
wall of the buccal root 3 mm above the CEJ
Distance between the outer surface of the buccal alveolar plate and the outer
wall of the buccal root 5 mm above the CEJ
Distance between the outer surface of the buccal alveolar plate and the outer
wall of the buccal root 10 mm above the CEJ
Distance between the mesiobuccal cusp tips of the maxillary rst permanent
molars
Distance between the most buccal points of the root canals of the
mesiobuccal roots of the maxillary rst permanent molars
Angle formed by the intersection of 2 lines traced toward the midline and
tangent to both mesial cusp tips of each maxillary rst permanent molar
Purpose
Alveolar bone height
Alveolar bone height
Alveolar bone thickness
Alveolar bone thickness
Tooth inclination
Tooth displacement and inclination
Tooth displacement and inclination
Tooth inclination
For the systematic error investigation, 10 examinations of each group were randomly chosen, measured
again after a minimum of 15 days, and analyzed by
using an intraclass correlation coefcient (ICC).
RESULTS
Fig 5. Tracing of the 10-mm line parallel to the tomographic vertical plane.
of the maxillary right and left rst molars (Fig 7, E). The
derived image in the coronal section (Fig 7, F) was used
to determine the angle AI and measurement DC (Fig 8, B;
Table I).
Statistical analysis
Brunetto et al
638
DISCUSSION
Brunetto et al
639
Fig 7. Determination of the furcation area of the maxillary rst permanent molars: A, note the
unevenness between both furcation areas; B, the purple line in the coronal section is moved to
accomplish leveling of the furcation areas; C and D, the resulting image in the axial section, used for
determination of the DR measurement; E, the blue line positioned in the axial image to pass between
the mesiobuccal and distobuccal roots of the maxillary right and left permanent molars; F, the derived
coronal image, used for determination of the AI angle and the DC measurement.
Brunetto et al
640
Table II. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and statistical signicance at T1 and T2 for the rapid maxillary expansion group
T1
Variable
NOV (mm)
NOVC (mm)
CEJ 3 (mm)
CEJ 5 (mm)
CEJ 10 (mm)
DR (mm)
DC (mm)
AI ( )
Mean
0.93
7.85
1.98
2.42
5.18
47.14
49.92
158.17
SD
0.25
0.52
0.59
0.88
2.05
2.19
1.84
9.80
T2
Minimum-maximum
0.60-1.56
6.85-8.81
0.89-3.16
1.01-4.19
2.23-8.86
44.58-53.65
47.51-53.79
138.91-178.18
Mean
1.68
8.64
1.10
1.82
5.95
52.00
59.19
145.29
SD
0.84
0.92
0.56
0.87
2.13
2.49
2.70
8.93
Minimum-maximum
0.97-4.12
7.13-10.67
0.00-2.37
0.48-3.54
2.5-10.02
47.58-57.36
55.21-63.96
117.22-155.26
P
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
*P \0.05.
Brunetto et al
641
Table III. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and statistical signicance at T1 and T2 for the slow maxillary expansion group
T1
Variable
NOV (mm)
NOVC (mm)
CEJ 3 (mm)
CEJ 5 (mm)
CEJ 10 (mm)
DR (mm)
DC (mm)
AI ( )
Mean
1.43
7.87
1.68
2.18
5.65
45.82
48.75
155.62
SD
0.53
0.81
0.58
0.71
1.73
2.68
3.16
13.52
T2
Minimum-maximum
0.89-3.01
6.80-9.98
0.43-2.75
1.05-3.65
4.16-10.33
41.39-51.01
44.08-53.59
127.24-179.69
Mean
4.37
11.15
0.31
0.69
3.84
52.22
57.78
147.75
SD
1.86
2.17
0.45
0.59
1.96
2.66
3.27
14.34
Minimum-maximum
1.17-7.08
7.52-14.66
0.00-1.33
0.00-1.90
1.72-9.62
48.04-57.57
51.80-62.68
116.98-167.33
P
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
\0.001*
*P \0.05.
Variable
NOV (mm)
NOVC (mm)
CEJ 3 (mm)
CEJ 5 (mm)
CEJ 10 (mm)
DR (mm)
DC (mm)
AI ( )
Rapid maxillary
expansion group
(n 5 17)
Slow maxillary
expansion group
(n 5 16)
T2-T1
0.75
0.78
0.88
0.60
0.77
4.85
9.26
12.88
T2-T1
2.94
3.28
1.36
1.49
1.81
6.39
9.02
7.87
SD
0.72
0.72
0.28
0.25
0.76
1.31
2.05
9.35
SD
1.74
1.68
0.44
0.39
0.74
1.12
1.70
6.80
P
0.0004*
0.0000*
0.0082*
0.0000*
0.0000*
0.0011*
0.7194
0.9050
*P \0.05.
ICC
0.99
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.97
0.95
0.99
95% CI
0.98-0.99
0.93-0.98
0.93-0.98
0.93-0.98
0.90-0.97
0.91-0.98
0.91-0.98
0.97-0.99
Brunetto et al
642
Brunetto et al
643
2.
3.
REFERENCES
1. Haas A. Rapid expansion of the maxillary dental arch and nasal
cavity by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 1961;31:
73-90.
2. Haas AJ. The treatment of maxillary deciency by opening the
midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 1965;35:200-17.
3. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial
orthopedics. Am J Orthod 1970;57:219-55.
4. Akkaya S, Lorenzon S, Ucem TT. Comparison of dental arch and
arch perimeter changes between bonded rapid and slow maxillary
expansion procedures. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:255-61.
5. Akkaya S, Lorenzon S, Ucem TT. A comparison of sagittal and
vertical effects between bonded rapid and slow maxillary expansion procedures. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:175-80.
6. Bell RA. A review of maxillary expansion in relation to rate of
expansion and patient's age. Am J Orthod 1982;81:32-7.
7. Bishara SE, Staley RN. Maxillary expansion: clinical implications.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:3-14.
8. Corbridge JK, Campbell PM, Taylor R, Ceen RF, Buschang PH.
Transverse dentoalveolar changes after slow maxillary expansion.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:317-25.
9. Cotton L. Slow maxillary expansion: skeletal versus dental
response to low magnitude force in Macaca mulatta. Am J Orthod
1978;73:1-23.
10. Greenbaum K, Zachrisson B. The effect of palatal expansion therapy on the periodontal supporting tissues. Am J Orthod 1982;81:
12-21.
11. Hicks EP. Slow maxillary expansion. A clinical study of the skeletal
versus dental response to low-magnitude force. Am J Orthod
1978;73:121-41.
12. Huynh T, Kennedy D, Joondeph D, Bollen AM. Treatment response
and stability of slow maxillary expansion using Haas, hyrax, and
quad-helix appliances: a retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:331-9.
13. Mossaz-Joelson K, Mossaz CF. Slow maxillary expansion: a comparison between banded and bonded appliances. Eur J Orthod
1989;11:67-76.
Brunetto et al
644
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.