3D occlusal changes of upper first molars after rapid maxillary expansion on permanent versus deciduous teeth: a retrospective multicenter CBCT study.
CBCT
Deciduous teeth
Maxillary first molar
Occlusion
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:
31 Jul 2023
31 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
27
06
2022
accepted:
19
05
2023
medline:
3
8
2023
pubmed:
31
7
2023
entrez:
30
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the three-dimensional dental changes for the maxillary first molars and the overall skeletal effects achieved after expansion between the rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance attached to two different anchor units, the maxillary deciduous molars and the maxillary permanent first molars. Patients were retrospectively selected according to the anchorage unit used for RME: deciduous upper second molars (RME-E group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 8.4 ± 1.1 years) and first upper permanent molars (RME-6 group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 12.6 ± 1.8 years). CBCT scans were obtained before treatment start (T1) and after retention and removal of the expander (T2). Images were analyzed using a new three-dimensional intra-hemi-maxillary reference system. 3D landmarks were marked to calculate all changes on maxillary first permanent molars; mesio-distal and buccal-lingual inclination and rotation, as well as intermolar and interforaminal distances were calculated. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare within-group changes, whereas the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare between-group differences, with the significance level set at 0.05. In the RME-E group, significant distorotation and lingual inclination of the first permanent molars at T2 were observed (p < 0.01); in the RME-6 group, only the buccolingual inclination of the crossbite side after RME was resulted statistically significant (p < 0.01). In both groups, intermolar and interforaminal values increased significantly (p < 0.01). Intergroup analysis showed a significantly higher distorotation and reduced buccal inclination of maxillary first permanent molars in the RME-E group after RME (p < 0.01). RME is effective in treating maxillary transverse hypoplasia; RME anchored too deciduous teeth spontaneously reduces buccal inclination and increases distorotation of maxillary first permanent molars, whereas anchorage to permanent molars is associated with increased buccal inclination, albeit with little clinical significance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to compare the three-dimensional dental changes for the maxillary first molars and the overall skeletal effects achieved after expansion between the rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance attached to two different anchor units, the maxillary deciduous molars and the maxillary permanent first molars.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients were retrospectively selected according to the anchorage unit used for RME: deciduous upper second molars (RME-E group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 8.4 ± 1.1 years) and first upper permanent molars (RME-6 group; 10 M, 10 F; mean age 12.6 ± 1.8 years). CBCT scans were obtained before treatment start (T1) and after retention and removal of the expander (T2). Images were analyzed using a new three-dimensional intra-hemi-maxillary reference system. 3D landmarks were marked to calculate all changes on maxillary first permanent molars; mesio-distal and buccal-lingual inclination and rotation, as well as intermolar and interforaminal distances were calculated. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare within-group changes, whereas the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare between-group differences, with the significance level set at 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the RME-E group, significant distorotation and lingual inclination of the first permanent molars at T2 were observed (p < 0.01); in the RME-6 group, only the buccolingual inclination of the crossbite side after RME was resulted statistically significant (p < 0.01). In both groups, intermolar and interforaminal values increased significantly (p < 0.01). Intergroup analysis showed a significantly higher distorotation and reduced buccal inclination of maxillary first permanent molars in the RME-E group after RME (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RME is effective in treating maxillary transverse hypoplasia; RME anchored too deciduous teeth spontaneously reduces buccal inclination and increases distorotation of maxillary first permanent molars, whereas anchorage to permanent molars is associated with increased buccal inclination, albeit with little clinical significance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37518579
doi: 10.1186/s40510-023-00476-1
pii: 10.1186/s40510-023-00476-1
pmc: PMC10387462
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Angle Orthod. 2007 Mar;77(2):296-302
pubmed: 17319765
Prog Orthod. 2019 Jul 15;20(1):27
pubmed: 31304569
J Orofac Orthop. 2017 Sep;78(5):385-393
pubmed: 28397083
Eur J Orthod. 2019 Sep 21;41(5):544-550
pubmed: 30855665
Prog Orthod. 2015;16:22
pubmed: 26154156
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Jul;43(7):543-64
pubmed: 27004835
Korean J Orthod. 2020 Sep 25;50(5):314-323
pubmed: 32938824
Angle Orthod. 2003 Aug;73(4):344-53
pubmed: 12940553
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Sep;118(3):257-61
pubmed: 10982925
Angle Orthod. 1999 Jun;69(3):247-50
pubmed: 10371430
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012 Aug;15(3):159-68
pubmed: 22812438
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140282
pubmed: 25358833
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Oct;39(7):400-8
pubmed: 20841457
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Dec;37(6):651-5
pubmed: 25700989
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):117-24
pubmed: 18617111
Korean J Orthod. 2016 Sep;46(5):269-79
pubmed: 27668190
Angle Orthod. 2015 Jul;85(4):570-6
pubmed: 25314034
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Apr;143(4):471-8
pubmed: 23561407
Angle Orthod. 2013 Jan;83(1):172-82
pubmed: 22827478
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Mar 11;18(3):
pubmed: 28287481
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Feb;155(2):198-206
pubmed: 30712691
Angle Orthod. 2003 Dec;73(6):654-61
pubmed: 14719729
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Mar;107(3):268-75
pubmed: 7879759
Acta Odontol Scand. 2011 Sep;69(5):274-8
pubmed: 21395472
Angle Orthod. 2013 Nov;83(6):1074-82
pubmed: 23745976
Prog Orthod. 2003;4:15-22
pubmed: 12887575
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Dec;17(4):286-294
pubmed: 28045316
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 08;(8):CD000979
pubmed: 25104166
Angle Orthod. 2012 May;82(3):448-57
pubmed: 22032536
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):582-91
pubmed: 21055598
Angle Orthod. 2005 Nov;75(6):1046-52
pubmed: 16448254