Periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expansion appliances

Introduction The purposes of this study were to evaluate and compare the periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expansion devices using cone-beam computed tomography. Methods Twenty-five patients requiring maxillary expansion were randomly allocated into...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 2015-07, Vol.148 (1), p.97-109
Hauptverfasser: Gunyuz Toklu, Miray, Germec-Cakan, Derya, Tozlu, Murat
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The purposes of this study were to evaluate and compare the periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expansion devices using cone-beam computed tomography. Methods Twenty-five patients requiring maxillary expansion were randomly allocated into 2 groups. A tooth-borne hyrax appliance was used in the first group, consisting of 13 patients (8 girls, 5 boys; mean age, 14.3 ± 2.3 years), and a tooth-bone-borne hybrid hyrax appliance was used in the second group of 12 patients (6 girls, 6 boys; mean age, 13.8 ± 2.2 years). Cone-beam computed tomography records were taken before and 3 months after expansion, and periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal measurements were made on the cone-beam computed tomography images with a software program. The 2 independent-samples t test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate treatment changes for both groups. Paired-samples t test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare the measurements at 2 time points for variables. Results Significant skeletal changes and increases in interdental distances were observed in both groups. However, the distances between the first and second premolars increased more with the hyrax appliance (7.5 ± 4.2 and 7.9 ± 3.3 mm, respectively) than with the hybrid hyrax (3.2 ± 2.6 and 4.5 ± 3.8 mm, respectively) ( P  
ISSN:0889-5406
1097-6752
DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.02.022