Rapid maxillary expansion versus middle ear tube placement: Comparison of hearing improvements in children with resistance otitis media with effusion.

OBJECTIVE

To test the null hypothesis that there are significant differences in hearing improvements of children with resistance otitis media with effusion (OME) who undergo a rapid maxillary expansion (RME) procedure or ventilation tube placement.

METHODS

Forty-two children between 4.5 and 15 years old were divided into three groups: RME, ventilation tube, and control groups. The RME group consisted of 15 children with maxillary constriction and resistance OME that indicated ventilation tube placement. The ventilation tube group consisted of 16 children for whom ventilation tube placement was indicated but no maxillary constriction. The control group consisted of 11 children with no orthodontic and/or rhinologic problems. Hearing thresholds were evaluated with three audiometric records: (1) before RME/ventilation tube placement (T0); (2) after RME/ventilation tube placement (T1), and (3) after an observation period of 10 months (T2). The control group was matched to these periods, except T1.

RESULTS

Hearing thresholds decreased significantly in both the RME and ventilation tube groups (P < .001). Hearing thresholds decreased approximately 15 and 17 decibels in the RME and ventilation tube groups, respectively, but differences in improvements were insignificant between the two study groups (P > .05). Slight changes were observed in the control groups.

CONCLUSION

The null hypothesis was rejected. RME showed similar effects as ventilation tube placement for release of otitis media and improvement of hearing thresholds levels. RME should be preferred as a first treatment option for children with maxillary constriction and resistance OME.