Objective: Miniscrew-assisted maxillary expansion devices are frequently used for patients with calcified midpalatal sutures. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two bone-borne maxillary expansion appliances on the cranial and circummaxillary sutures by comparing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images before and after transverse maxillary expansion.
Methods: A total of 81 patients (women = 58, men = 23) were treated with either a C-expander (n = 44) or an ATOZ expander (n = 37). CBCT images were obtained before (T0) and after (T1) maxillary expansion, and the widths of 10 circummaxillary sutures were measured in the sagittal, coronal, and axial planes. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the changes in suture width between the C-expander and ATOZ groups, and statistical significance was set at < 0.05.
Results: The frontonasal, frontomaxillary, pterygomaxillary, nasomaxillary, internasal, intermaxillary, and midpalatal suture widths increased significantly after maxillary expansion in both the ATOZ and C-expander groups (both < 0.05). The frontozygomatic, zygomaticomaxillary, and temporozygomatic suture widths decreased in the C-expander group ( < 0.05), whereas the frontozygomatic suture width increased significantly in the ATOZ group ( < 0.05). The width changes of the frontozygomatic, zygomaticomaxillary, temporozygomatic, pterygomaxillary, internasal, intermaxillary, and midpalatal sutures differed significantly between the two groups ( < 0.05).
Conclusions: Both the C- and ATOZ expanders affected the suture width in the naso-maxillo-zygomatic region. The C-expander decreased the circum-zygomatic suture widths, whereas the ATOZ expander widened the frontozygomatic suture with no effect on other circummaxillary sutures.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11602256 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod24.180 | DOI Listing |
Korean J Orthod
November 2024
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.
Turk J Orthod
June 2024
Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, İstanbul, Turkey.
Objective: This retrospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the maturation of intramaxillary and circummaxillary suture systems and cervical vertebral maturation as predictors of the skeletal response achieved by rapid maxillary expansion (RME).
Methods: A Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine dataset of 20 patients (mean age: 15.55 years) prior (T0) and after (T1: 3.
Prog Orthod
March 2024
Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 173 Ashley Ave, MSC 507, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Objective: To analyze and compare the effects of a traditional laboratory-fabricated Hyrax expander (T-Hyrax) and two different 3D-printed Hyrax expander models relative to tension points, force distribution, and areas of concentration in the craniofacial complex during maxillary expansion using finite element analysis.
Materials And Methods: Three maxillary expanders with similar designs, but various alloys were modeled: a T-Hyrax, a fully printed Hyrax (F-Hyrax), and a hybrid printed Hyrax (H-Hyrax). The stress distributions and magnitude of displacements were assessed with a 5 mm expansion in a symmetrical finite element model.
J Craniofac Surg
June 2024
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Objectives: This study used computed tomography (CT) to compare the bone thickness and density values around the zygomaticomaxillary, zygomaticotemporal, and pterygomaxillary sutures that are resistant to rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment according to age, sex, and cervical vertebrae maturation (CVM) stage.
Methods: The study included 200 paranasal sinus records obtained for medical diagnosis and examination in a radiology clinic. The records provided data on 110 males and 90 females aged between 4 and 28 years.
Cureus
December 2023
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital, Tiruvallur, IND.
The correction of skeletal class III malocclusions is one of the most difficult orthodontic treatments. Skeletal Class III malocclusion may result from a combination of maxillary deficits and mandibular prognathism, mandibular prognathism alone, or maxillary deficits alone. Treatment options include an orthopedic appliance (facemask and chin cup), orthodontics with camouflage, a combination of orthognathic surgery and orthodontics, and the recently introduced bone-anchored maxillary protraction.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!