A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessment of the dental and skeletal effects of fan-type rapid maxillary expansion screw and Hyrax screw on craniofacial structures. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the effects of two types of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances—fan-type and Hyrax—on the skeletal and dental structures of patients with narrow maxillary arches.
  • The research involved 12 patients, with measurements taken from cephalograms and stone models to evaluate changes in arch widths before and after treatment, using various statistical methods for analysis.
  • Results indicated that the Hyrax appliance led to more significant increases in nasal cavity and maxillary widths compared to the fan-type, while both appliances caused similar increases in intercanine width, but only minimal enhancement of intermolar width with the fan-type.

Article Abstract

Aims And Objectives: The purpose of the study was to assess the skeletal and dental effects of fan-type rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance and Hyrax RME appliance on the craniofacial structures.

Materials And Methods: The sample of the study included 12 patients with constricted maxillary arches. Acrylic bonded type of attachment was used for both groups. Changes in sagittal, vertical, and transverse relationship were assessed with lateral and frontal cephalograms, respectively. Intercanine and intermolar widths were measured with stone models. Pre- and immediate post-treatment records were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The differences between the groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U-test. Since the data pertaining to intercanine width and intermolar width were normally distributed, parametric test of significance (unpaired -test) was used to compare them.

Results: Results showed that Hyrax presented with significantly greater increments for both nasal cavity width and maxillary width when compared to fan-type RME. Both groups had retroclination of incisors. The increase in the intercanine width was almost similar in both groups.

Conclusion: Fan-type RME caused only minimal expansion of the intermolar width when compared to the Hyrax. The ratio between the intercanine and intermolar width expansion was nearly 4:1 in the fan-type RME and 0.75:1 in Hyrax.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426169PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.205066DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

intermolar width
12
fan-type rme
12
effects fan-type
8
fan-type rapid
8
rapid maxillary
8
maxillary expansion
8
rme appliance
8
intercanine intermolar
8
intercanine width
8
width compared
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!