Maxillary expander with differential opening vs Hyrax expander: A randomized clinical trial

The aim of this 2-arm parallel trial was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the Hyrax expander in the mixed dentition. Patients aged 7-11 years with maxillary dental arch constriction and Class I or Class II sagittal relationships were randomly a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 2020-01, Vol.157 (1), p.7-18
Main Authors: Alves, Arthur César de Medeiros, Janson, Guilherme, Mcnamara, James A., Lauris, José Roberto Pereira, Garib, Daniela Gamba
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Child
Dental Arch
Dentistry
Dentition, Mixed
Female
Humans
Male
Maxilla
Palatal Expansion Technique
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of this 2-arm parallel trial was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the Hyrax expander in the mixed dentition. Patients aged 7-11 years with maxillary dental arch constriction and Class I or Class II sagittal relationships were randomly allocated into 2 study groups. The experimental group comprised 22 patients (10 males, 12 females) with a mean age of 8.46 years treated with the EDO. The comparison group was composed of 24 patients (6 males, 18 females), mean age of 8.92 years treated with the conventional Hyrax expander. One complete turn per day for 6 days was performed for the posterior screw of the EDO and for the Hyrax expander. The anterior screw of the EDO was activated 1 complete turn per day for 10 days. The primary outcomes were the anterior opening of the midpalatal suture, changes on the interincisal diastema width, maxillary dental arch widths, arch perimeter, arch length, palatal depth, inclination of maxillary posterior teeth and on dental arch shape, and the amount of differential expansion in the anterior region compared with the posterior region of the maxillary dental arch. Computer-generated randomization was used. Allocation was concealed with sequentially, numbered, sealed, and opaque envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Occlusal radiographs of the maxilla were obtained at the end of the active expansion phase (T2). Intraoral photographs were obtained immediately pre-expansion (T1) and at T2. Digital dental models were obtained at T1 and 6 months after the active expansion period (T3). Intergroup comparisons of T1-T2 changes were performed using multiple linear regression analysis (P 
ISSN:0889-5406
1097-6752
DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.07.010