Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2024
Skeletal and dental effects of function-generating bite appliance compared to rapid palatal expander and untreated controls.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Tepedino Michele, Montaruli Graziano, Esposito Rosa, Akhilanand Chaurasia, Lorusso Mauro, Laurenziello Michele, Ciavarella Domenico
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Maxillary expansion is a fundamental interceptive orthodontic treatment, which can be achieved through either a rapid expansion protocol or functional devices. However, no data exist about the efficacy of functional devices in achieving skeletal expansion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of the rapid palatal expander (RPE) and the function-generating bite type M (FGB-M) on the transversal dimension of the maxilla, and on the maxillary and mandibular dental arch width.
METHODS: One hundred eighty-one skeletal Class I patients, aged between 6 and 12 years and with a cervical vertebral maturation stage II or III, with maxillary transversal deficiency were retrospectively enrolled; among these 55 were treated with FGB-M, 73 were treated with RPE and 51 were untreated subjects retrieved from historical databases. The pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) frontal cephalograms were retrieved, and the maxillary and mandibular widths, and the distance between upper and lower first molars were measured. T1-T0 interval was of 17.3 months (RPE), 24.6 months (FGB-M) and 18.2 months (controls).
RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding skeletal and dental expansion, while the untreated control group differed significantly from the other two groups.
CONCLUSION: The comparison between patients treated with RPE and FGB-M showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding the amount of skeletal expansion and dental arch width, suggesting that both appliances can be used to achieve similar results.
METHODS: One hundred eighty-one skeletal Class I patients, aged between 6 and 12 years and with a cervical vertebral maturation stage II or III, with maxillary transversal deficiency were retrospectively enrolled; among these 55 were treated with FGB-M, 73 were treated with RPE and 51 were untreated subjects retrieved from historical databases. The pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) frontal cephalograms were retrieved, and the maxillary and mandibular widths, and the distance between upper and lower first molars were measured. T1-T0 interval was of 17.3 months (RPE), 24.6 months (FGB-M) and 18.2 months (controls).
RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding skeletal and dental expansion, while the untreated control group differed significantly from the other two groups.
CONCLUSION: The comparison between patients treated with RPE and FGB-M showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the RPE and FGB-M groups regarding the amount of skeletal expansion and dental arch width, suggesting that both appliances can be used to achieve similar results.