American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021
Skeletal and dental changes after maxillary expansion with a bone-borne appliance in young and late adolescent patients.
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.
Annarumma Fabio, Posadino Marco, De Mari Anna, Drago Sara, Aghazada Hussein, Gravina Giovanni Manes, Qorri Erda, Silvestrini-Biavati Armando, Migliorati Marco
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Rapid palatal expansion is a common therapy during orthodontic treatment and could be a preliminary step for correcting different malocclusions; furthermore, this treatment could be necessary at any age. Different anchorage approaches have been proposed to obtain an effective skeletal result, although every device produces both dental and skeletal effects. This study aimed to compare the dentoskeletal effects of a bone-borne palatal expander considering 2 groups of patients of different ages.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients consecutively treated were included in the study; patients were divided into 2 groups according to their age: group 1 with age ≤16 years and group 2 patients >16 years. All patients had a preexpansion cone-beam computed tomography scan; a second scan was required at the end of activations. All patients received a bone-borne appliance anchored on 4 miniscrews.
RESULTS: Significant intragroup differences were found for maxillary width and dental diameters. No significant differences were found between groups with regard to longitudinal changes, except for the maxillary right plane.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of bone-borne maxillary expansion was effective in generating palatal widening both in growing and young adult patients. No significant skeletal or dental differences were found between groups.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients consecutively treated were included in the study; patients were divided into 2 groups according to their age: group 1 with age ≤16 years and group 2 patients >16 years. All patients had a preexpansion cone-beam computed tomography scan; a second scan was required at the end of activations. All patients received a bone-borne appliance anchored on 4 miniscrews.
RESULTS: Significant intragroup differences were found for maxillary width and dental diameters. No significant differences were found between groups with regard to longitudinal changes, except for the maxillary right plane.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of bone-borne maxillary expansion was effective in generating palatal widening both in growing and young adult patients. No significant skeletal or dental differences were found between groups.