Stability of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion and orthopedic maxillary expansion after 3 years' follow-up

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the stability of surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion (SARME) and orthopedic maxillary expansion (OME) after 3 years of follow-up, and compare these changes with a control group. Materials and Methods: The subjects of the study were divided into three groups. Group 1 was composed of 10 patients (6 males, 4 females) with a mean age of 15.51 years (range: 13.33-17.58 years) and treated with OME, Group 2 comprised 10 patients (7 males, 3 females) with a mean age of 19.01 years (range: 16.25-25.58 years) and treated with SARME. Group 3 was the control group, consisting of 10 untreated, skeletal Class 1 subjects (6 males, 4 females) with a mean age of 15.27 years (range: 13.42-17.00 years) and matched to the OME group for sex and age. Lateral cephalometric and posteroantererior films were taken before expansion (T1), postexpansion (T2), and 3 years after the retention period (T3). Results: After OME and SARME, significant increases were observed for both dental and skeletal transverse widths (P , .01). After 3 years of follow-up, maxillary basal width decreased 1.35 6 0.44 mm in the SARME group and 1.19 6 0.41 mm in the OME group, while upper molar width decreased 2.23 6 1.24 mm in the SARME group and 2.79 6 1.01 mm in the OME group. Conclusions: Both the OME and SARME procedures remained stable after 3 years of follow-up with some amount of postretention relapse, compared with the control group. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:613-619.)

Satisfactory outcomes after orthognathic surgery with surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion using a hybrid device

“…The preoperative status in Part I was compared with the postoperative status in Part II. In addition, a previous, 3-year follow-up of both OME and SARME showed that the treatments remained stable in the patients when compared with a control group [33]. Hence, studies using a 6-month retention period, as in the present study, may report less relapse compared with those that use a 3-month stabilization period [34].…”

Pharyngeal airway space cephalometric evaluation in transverse maxillary deficient patients after SARME

“…When SARME is done first, the transverse correction precedes orthognathic surgery or the transverse deficiency is the only deformity 18 . According to many authors, it is a simple, stable and safe method of treatment 4,[19][20][21] . Skeletal changes and stability of dentofacial deformity correction using 2-D methods are well described in the literature [22][23] .…”

“…The etiology is multifactorial including genetic predisposition, developmental issues (e.g. : premature loss of teeth, parafunctional habits), asymmetric jaw, traumatic injuries and iatrogenic outcomes 2,4 . There is a transversal discrepancy between the maxillary and mandibular arch widths 5 .…”

“…The transverse discrepancy diagnosis is based on meticulous clinical examination, radiographic or tomographic imaging and occlusal plaster model 2,7 . It is characterized mainly by a deep palate, posterior crossbite (one side or both), upright posterior teeth, alveolar vertical growth, lack of elliptical shape at the maxillary arch, crowding and dental rotations [2][3][4]7 .…”

Clinical Concepts in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Novel Findings to the Field of Bone Regeneration

“…The control group consisted of untreated, skeletal Class 1 subjects matched to the OME group in order to assess the effects of normal skeletal growth. The study showed that both the OME and the SARME procedures remained stable after three years with some amount of post retention relapses compared with the control group (Kurt et al 2010). In our clinic, we went one step further using a device with both tooth and bone anchorages (Fig.…”