Rapid maxillary expansion outcomes according to midpalatal suture maturation levels.
Cone beam computed tomography
Midpalatal suture
Orthodontics
Rapid maxillary expansion
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jul 2019
15 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
29
03
2019
accepted:
23
05
2019
entrez:
16
7
2019
pubmed:
16
7
2019
medline:
27
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aims to compare the relationship between skeletal and dental outcomes of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images between pre-pubertal peak (pre-peak) and post-pubertal peak (post-peak) patients. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcomes of RME treatment between the groups. Thirty-two patients who underwent RME treatment were classified according to midpalatal suture maturation levels and then divided into two groups as pre-peak and post-peak. Skeletal and dental measurements were performed on the CBCT images at T0 (pre-treatment stage) and at T1 (post-treatment stage). Paired sample t test was used to evaluate normally distributed data and P < 0.05 was taken as the significance level. There were significant differences between T0 and T1 within the groups, but the changes between the pre-peak and post-peak patient groups were not statistically significant. Non-significant changes were found between the two groups, and the null hypothesis was excepted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aims to compare the relationship between skeletal and dental outcomes of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) treatment on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images between pre-pubertal peak (pre-peak) and post-pubertal peak (post-peak) patients. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcomes of RME treatment between the groups.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-two patients who underwent RME treatment were classified according to midpalatal suture maturation levels and then divided into two groups as pre-peak and post-peak. Skeletal and dental measurements were performed on the CBCT images at T0 (pre-treatment stage) and at T1 (post-treatment stage). Paired sample t test was used to evaluate normally distributed data and P < 0.05 was taken as the significance level.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were significant differences between T0 and T1 within the groups, but the changes between the pre-peak and post-peak patient groups were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Non-significant changes were found between the two groups, and the null hypothesis was excepted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31304569
doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0278-9
pii: 10.1186/s40510-019-0278-9
pmc: PMC6626764
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Références
J Orofac Orthop. 2007 Sep;68(5):364-76
pubmed: 17882364
Angle Orthod. 1980 Jul;50(3):189-217
pubmed: 6996533
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Jul;148(1):97-109
pubmed: 26124033
Prog Orthod. 2018 Aug 13;19(1):29
pubmed: 30101400
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Dec;46(12):1557-1561
pubmed: 28716474
Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1971;:263-71
pubmed: 4949742
Angle Orthod. 2014 Mar;84(2):265-73
pubmed: 23865825
J Orofac Orthop. 2004 Nov;65(6):467-74
pubmed: 15570405
Angle Orthod. 1965 Jul;35:178-86
pubmed: 14331018
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Dec;148(6):1010-6
pubmed: 26672707
Angle Orthod. 2001 Oct;71(5):343-50
pubmed: 11605867
Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Nov-Dec;21(6):115-125
pubmed: 28125147
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Feb;151(2):267-276
pubmed: 28153155
Am J Orthod. 1982 Jan;81(1):12-21
pubmed: 6758588
Angle Orthod. 1965 Jul;35:200-17
pubmed: 14331020
Angle Orthod. 2004 Feb;74(1):118-24
pubmed: 15038500
Am J Orthod. 1970 Jul;58(1):41-66
pubmed: 5269181
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Nov;144(5):759-69
pubmed: 24182592
Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 Jul-Aug;22(4):61-69
pubmed: 28902251
Am J Orthod. 1977 Jul;72(1):42-52
pubmed: 267435
Angle Orthod. 1967 Apr;37(2):134-43
pubmed: 4290545
Angle Orthod. 2005 Jul;75(4):548-57
pubmed: 16097223
J Dent Res. 1990 Jun;69(6):1298-306
pubmed: 2355125
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Oct;138(4):486-492
pubmed: 20889055
Angle Orthod. 2016 Nov;86(6):925-933
pubmed: 27182780
Prog Orthod. 2018 Jul 12;19(1):26
pubmed: 30003384
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jul 14;17(1):113
pubmed: 28705206
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jun;151(6):1125-1138
pubmed: 28554458
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Aug;16(4):471-8
pubmed: 23294461
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Sep;154(3):365-374
pubmed: 30173839
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):8-9
pubmed: 18617096
Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 Mar-Apr;22(2):61-68
pubmed: 28658357
Angle Orthod. 1997;67(4):291-305; discussion 306-8
pubmed: 9267578
Am J Orthod. 1983 May;83(5):382-90
pubmed: 6573846