The Angle orthodontist · 2026
Effect of skeletal miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion on root resorption, buccal bone thickness and tooth inclination: a retrospective CBCT study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Qaqaa Samer, Al-Khateeb Susan N, Al Samhouri Abdallah
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) on root resorption, buccal bone thickness, and tooth inclination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 30 patients with maxillary constriction who were treated with MARPE. The device was left in place for 6 months for retention. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken before treatment and after 6 months. CBCT images were analyzed for root length, buccal bone thickness, and tooth inclination for premolars and first molar on both sides. A paired t-test was used to compare between pretreatment and posttreatment root lengths, buccal bone thickness, and buccal tooth inclination.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between pretreatment and posttreatment root lengths of all measured teeth (P value > .05). A significant difference was found in the buccal bone thickness at the right second premolar at the levels of 2 mm and 8 mm (P = .049 and P = .039, respectively) and at the level of 2 mm for the left second premolar (P = .009). Buccal bone thickness at the right and left mesiobuccal root of the first molar at 8 mm was significantly reduced after expansion (P = .001). The difference between pre-expansion and postexpansion in tooth inclination ranged between -1.87 and 0.27. Only the inclination of the left first molar was significantly increased after expansion.
CONCLUSIONS: No root resorption was caused by the bone-borne MARPE. No change in buccal bone thickness and inclination of most of the posterior maxillary teeth was found.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 30 patients with maxillary constriction who were treated with MARPE. The device was left in place for 6 months for retention. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images were taken before treatment and after 6 months. CBCT images were analyzed for root length, buccal bone thickness, and tooth inclination for premolars and first molar on both sides. A paired t-test was used to compare between pretreatment and posttreatment root lengths, buccal bone thickness, and buccal tooth inclination.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between pretreatment and posttreatment root lengths of all measured teeth (P value > .05). A significant difference was found in the buccal bone thickness at the right second premolar at the levels of 2 mm and 8 mm (P = .049 and P = .039, respectively) and at the level of 2 mm for the left second premolar (P = .009). Buccal bone thickness at the right and left mesiobuccal root of the first molar at 8 mm was significantly reduced after expansion (P = .001). The difference between pre-expansion and postexpansion in tooth inclination ranged between -1.87 and 0.27. Only the inclination of the left first molar was significantly increased after expansion.
CONCLUSIONS: No root resorption was caused by the bone-borne MARPE. No change in buccal bone thickness and inclination of most of the posterior maxillary teeth was found.