Two- and Three-Segment Surgically Assisted Rapid Maxillary Expansion: A Clinical Trial

Abstract

Although surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion is widely applied to correct transverse maxillary discrepancies in adults, the number and site of osteotomies, activation protocol of expanding device, time allowed for osseous consolidation, and use of a specific type of device following surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion retention are not established as a strict consensus. [1][2][3][4][5][6] This mostly stems from weak evidence reported in studies with less than ideal experimental design. 7,8 Basically, two operative techniques are used in surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: the first is known as a bipartite or two-segment technique, which includes as main feature the osteotomy along the median palatine suture 5,6,[9][10][11][12][13][14] ; and the second is referred to as a tripartite or threesegment technique, whose main feature is two paramedian osteotomies instead. There are few studies in the literature comparing the outcomes of these two surgical techniques. [15][16][17][18] The authors of these studies advocate several advantages of the three-segment technique over its two-segment counterpart. These include lower risk of damage to the roots of the upper incisors in cases of severe From the Postgraduate Program in Translational Medicine,

Discussion: Two- and Three-Segment Surgically Assisted Rapid Maxillary Expansion: A Clinical Trial

“…D r. Prado and colleagues address a controversial topic in maxillofacial surgery. 1 Specifically, how does one choose between two-segment versus three-segment surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion? The authors compared the outcome of two-and three-segment surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion by randomly assigning patients to each group.…”