Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1789–1799 | Cite as

Slow versus rapid maxillary expansion in bilateral cleft lip and palate: a CBCT randomized clinical trial

  • Araci Malagodi de Almeida
  • Terumi Okada Ozawa
  • Arthur César de Medeiros AlvesEmail author
  • Guilherme Janson
  • José Roberto Pereira Lauris
  • Marilia Sayako Yatabe Ioshida
  • Daniela Gamba Garib
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this “two-arm parallel” trial was to compare the orthopedic, dental, and alveolar bone plate changes of slow (SME) and rapid (RME) maxillary expansions in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP).

Material and methods

Forty-six patients with BCLP and maxillary arch constriction in the late mixed dentition were randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Computer-generated randomization was used. Allocation was concealed with sequentially, numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes. The SME and RME groups comprised patients treated with quad-helix and Haas/Hyrax-type expanders, respectively. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) exams were performed before expansion and 4 to 6 months post-expansion. Nasal cavity width, maxillary width, alveolar crest width, arch width, palatal cleft width, inclination of posterior teeth, alveolar crest level, and buccal and lingual bone plate thickness were assessed. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Interphase and intergroup comparisons were performed using paired t tests and t tests, respectively (p < 0.05).

Results

SME and RME similarly promoted significant increase in all the maxillary transverse dimensions at molar and premolar regions with a decreasing expanding effect from the dental arch to the nasal cavity. Palatal cleft width had a significant increase in both groups. Significant buccal inclination of posterior teeth was only observed for RME. Additionally, both expansion procedures promoted a slight reduction of the alveolar crest level and the buccal bone plate thickness.

Conclusions

No difference was found between the orthopedic, dental, and alveolar bone plate changes of SME and RME in children with BCLP. Both appliances produced significant skeletal transverse gains with negligible periodontal bone changes. Treatment time for SME, however, was longer than the observed for RME.

Clinical relevance

SME and RME can be similarly indicated to correct maxillary arch constriction in patients with BCLP in the mixed dentition.

Keywords

Palatal expansion technique Cone-beam computed tomography Cleft lip  Cleft palate 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was not supported by fundings.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Freitas JAS, Garib DG, Oliveira M, Lauris RC, Almeida AL, Neves LT, Trindade-Suedam IK, Yaedú RY, Soares S, Pinto JH (2012) Rehabilitative treatment of cleft lip and palate: experience of the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies-USP-Part 2: Pediatric Dentistry And Orthodontics. J Appl Oral Sci 20:268–281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Semb G (1991) A study of facial growth in patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28:22–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Semb G (1991) A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the Oslo CLP team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 28:1–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silva Filho OG, Ramos AL, Abdo RC (1992) The influence of unilateral cleft lip and palate on maxillary dental arch morphology. Angle Orthod 62:283–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capelozza Filho L, Almeida AM, Ursi W (1994) Rapid maxillary expansion in cleft lip and palate patients. JCO 28:34–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silva Filho OG, Castro Machado FM, Andrade AC, Souza Freitas JA, Bishara SE (1998) Upper dental arch morphology of adult unoperated complete bilateral cleft lip and palate. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidbuchel KL, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van’t Hof MA, Kramer GJ, Prahl-Andersen B (1998) Effects of early treatment on maxillary arch development in BCLP: a study on dental casts between 0 and 4 years of age. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 26:140–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haas A (1961) Rapid expansion of the maxillary dental arch and nasal cavity by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 31:73–90Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haas A (1965) The treatment of maxillary deficiency by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod 35:200–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ballanti F, Lione R, Fanucci E, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P (2009) Immediate and post-retention effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in growing patients. Angle Orthod 79:24–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brunetto M, Andriani JSP, Ribeiro GLU, Locks A, Correa M, Correa LR (2013) Three-dimensional assessment of buccal alveolar bone after rapid and slow maxillary expansion: a clinical trial study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 143:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corbridge JK, Campbell PM, Taylor R, Ceen RF, Buschang PH (2011) Transverse dentoalveolar changes after slow maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueiredo DSF, Bartolomeo FUC, Romualdo CR, Palomo JM, Horta MCR, Andrade I Jr, Oliveira DD (2014) Dentoskeletal effects of 3 maxillary expanders in patients with clefts: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Int J Surg 10:28–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garib DG, Henriques JFC, Janson G, Coelho RA (2005) Rapid maxillary expansion-tooth tissue-borne versus tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal effects. Angle Orthod 75:548–557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fleiss JL (1986) Analysis of data from multiclinic trials. Control Clin Trials 7:267–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hicks EP (1978) Slow maxillary expansion: a clinical study of the skeletal versus dental response to low-magnitude force. Am J Orthod 73:121–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank SW, Engel GA (1982) The effects of maxillary quad-helix appliance expansion on cephalometric measurements in growing orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod 81:378–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaconas SJ, Caputo AA (1982) Observation of orthopedic force distribution produced by maxillary orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod 82:492–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Isaacson RJ, Ingram AH (1964) Forces produced by rapid maxillary expansion: II. Forces present during treatment. Angle Orthod 34:261–270Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wertz RA (1970) Skeletal and dental changes accompanying rapid midpalatal suture opening. Am J Orthod 58:41–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Timms DJ (1980) A study of basal movement with rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod 77:500–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    da Silva Filho OG, do Prado Montes LA, Torelly LF (1995) Rapid maxillary expansion in the deciduous and mixed dentition evaluated through posteroanterior cephalometric analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 107:268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Comission (2011) Radiation protection no 172: cone beam CT for dental and maxillofacial radiology. Evidence based guidelines. A report prepared by the SEDENTEXCT project. Publications office, Luxembourg CityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (2013) Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American Academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:238–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akkaya S, Lorenzon S, Üçm T (1998) Comparison of dental arch and arch perimeter changes between bonded rapid and slow maxillary expansion procedures. Eur J Orthod 20:255–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pan X, Qian Y, Yu J, Wang D, Tang Y, Shen G (2007) Biomechanical effects of rapid palatal expansion on the craniofacial skeleton with cleft palate: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac 44:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holberg C, Holberg N, Schwenzer K, Wichelhaus A, Rudzki-Janson I (2007) Biomechanical analysis of maxillary expansion in CLP patients. Angle Orthod 77:280–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Mezomo M, Dias DM, Lima EM, Rizzatto SM (2011) Immediate effects of rapid maxillary expansion with Haas-type and hyrax-type expanders: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Façanha AJ, Lara TS, Garib DG, Silva Filho OG (2014) Transverse effect of Haas and hyrax appliances on the upper dental arch in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate: a comparative study. Dental Press J Orthod 19:39–45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JYK, Kim J, Taylor G (2007) Factors affecting buccal bone changes of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:428.e1–428.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vasant MR, Menon S, Kannan S (2009) Maxillary expansion in cleft lip and palate using quad helix and rapid palatal expansion screw. Med J Armed Forces India 65:150–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Medeiros Alves ACM, Garib DG, Janson G, Almeida AM, Calil LR (2015) Analysis of the dentoalveolar effects of slow and rapid maxillary expansion in complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1675-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martina R, Cioffi I, Farella M, Leone P, Manzo P, Matarese G, Portelli M, Nucera R, Cordasco G (2012) Transverse changes determined by rapid and slow maxillary expansion—a low-dose CT-based randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 15:159–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huynh T, Kennedy DB, Joondeph DR, Bollen AM (2009) Treatment response and stability of slow maxillary expansion using Haas, hyrax, and quad-helix appliances: a retrospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gurel HC, Memili B, Erkan M, Sukurica Y (2010) Long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthod 80:5–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinheiro FHSL, Garib DG, Janson G, Bombonatti R, Freitas MR (2014) Longitudinal stability of rapid and slow maxillary expansion. Dental Press J Orthod 19:70–77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Araci Malagodi de Almeida
    • 1
  • Terumi Okada Ozawa
    • 1
  • Arthur César de Medeiros Alves
    • 2
    Email author
  • Guilherme Janson
    • 2
  • José Roberto Pereira Lauris
    • 3
  • Marilia Sayako Yatabe Ioshida
    • 2
  • Daniela Gamba Garib
    • 2
  1. 1.Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Community Health, Bauru Dental SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations