Skip to main content
Log in

Long-term effects of orthodontic interceptive expansion treatment

A retrospective study

Langfristige Auswirkungen einer kieferorthopädischen interzeptiven Expansionsbehandlung

Eine retrospektive Studie

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the long-term effects of interceptive orthodontic treatment with a removable expansion plate, based on transversal, sagittal, and vertical parameters.

Methods

A total of 90 patients needing interceptive treatment due to a crossbite or space deficiency were included. Records consisting of clinical photos, radiographs, and digital dental casts were collected for evaluation at two time points: the start of interceptive treatment (T0) and the start of comprehensive treatment (T1). Molar occlusion, overjet, overbite, presence and type of crossbite, mandibular shift, and transversal measurements were recorded for comparison.

Results

After expansion with removable appliances, a significant increase in intermolar width was achieved and could be maintained over the observation period (p < 0.001). However, no significant changes regarding overjet, overbite, or molar sagittal occlusion were observed. Crossbite correction was successful in 86.9% of patients with unilateral crossbite and in 75.0% of patients with bilateral crossbite (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Early expansion with a removable expansion plate is a successful method to correct crossbites and increase intermolar width in the early mixed dentition phase. Results remain stable until the start of comprehensive treatment in the permanent dentition.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel dieser retrospektiven Kohortenstudie war es, die Langzeiteffekte einer interzeptiven kieferorthopädischen Behandlung mit einer herausnehmbaren Expansionsplatte anhand von transversalen, sagittalen und vertikalen Parametern zu bewerten.

Methoden

Insgesamt 90 Patienten, die aufgrund von Kreuzbiss oder Engstand eine interzeptive Behandlung benötigten, wurden eingeschlossen. Die Dokumentation, bestehend aus klinischen Fotos, Röntgenbildern und digitalen Zahnabdrücken, wurde zu 2 Zeitpunkten ausgewertet: zu Beginn der interzeptiven Behandlung (T0) und zu Beginn der Hauptbehandlung (T1). Zum Vergleich wurden Molarenokklusion, Overjet, Overbite, das Vorhandensein eines und die Art des Kreuzbisses, die Unterkieferverschiebung und die transversalen Maße erfasst.

Ergebnisse

Nach der Erweiterung mit herausnehmbaren Apparaturen wurde eine signifikante Zunahme der Intermolarenbreite erzielt, die während des Beobachtungszeitraums beibehalten werden konnte (p < 0,001). Es wurden jedoch keine signifikanten Veränderungen in Bezug auf Overjet, Overbite oder molare sagittale Okklusion beobachtet. Die Korrektur des Kreuzbisses war bei 86,9% der Patienten mit einseitigem Kreuzbiss und bei 75,0% der Patienten mit beidseitigem Kreuzbiss erfolgreich (p < 0,001).

Schlussfolgerung

Die frühzeitige Expansion mit einer herausnehmbaren Dehnplatte ist eine erfolgreiche Methode zur Korrektur von Kreuzbissen und zur Vergrößerung der Intermolarenbreite in der frühen Wechselgebissphase. Die Ergebnisse bleiben bis zum Beginn einer umfassenden Behandlung im bleibenden Gebiss stabil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackerman JL, Proffit WR (1980) Preventive and interceptive orthodontics. Angle Orthod 50(2):75–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Popovich F, Thompson GW (1975) Evaluation of preventive and interceptive orthodontic treatment between three and eighteen years of age. In: Cook JT (ed) Transactions of Third International Orthodontic Congress. Crosby, Lockwood and Staples, London:, pp 260–281

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mirabelli JT, Huang GJ, Siu CH, King GJ, Omnell L (2005) The effectiveness of phase I orthodontic treatment in a Medicaid population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127(5):592–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jolley CJ, Huang GJ, Greenlee GM, Spiekerman C, Kiyak HA, King GJ (2010) Dental effects of interceptive orthodontic treatment in a Medicaid population: Interim results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137(3):324–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. King GJ, Spiekerman CF, Greenlee GM, Huang GJ (2012) Randomized clinical trial of interceptive and comprehensive orthodontics. J Dent Res 91(1):S59–S64

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Larson B, Sarver DM (2019) Contemporary orthodontics, 6th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Sousa RV, Ribeiro GLA, Firmino RT, Martins CC, Granville-Garcia AF, Paiva SM (2014) Prevalence and associated factors for the development of anterior open bite and posterior crossbite in the primary dentition. Braz Dent J 25(4):336–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Willems G, De Bruyne I, Verdonck A, Fieuws S, Carels C (2001) Prevalence of dentofacial characteristics in a belgian orthodontic population. Clin Oral Invest 5(4):220–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Egermark-Eriksson I, Carlsson GE, Magnusson T, Thilander B (1990) A longitudinal study on malocclusion in relation to signs and symptoms of cranio-mandibular disorders in children and adolescents. Eur J Orthod 12(4):399–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iodice G, Danzi G, Cimino R, Paduano S, Michelotti A (2016) Association between posterior crossbite, skeletal, and muscle asymmetry: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 38(6):638–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E (1990) Reliability of patient reports on compliance. Eur J Orthod 12(4):438–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Moghrabi D, Salazar FC, Pandis N, Fleming PS (2017) Compliance with removable orthodontic appliances and adjuncts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 152(1):17–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. King GJ, Brudvik P (2010) Effectiveness of interceptive orthodontic treatment in reducing malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(1):18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P et al (2003) Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial Part 2: Psychosocial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124(5):488–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seehra J, Fleming PS, Newton T, DiBiase AT (2011) Bullying in orthodontic patients and its relationship to malocclusion, selfesteem and oral health-related quality of life. J Orthod 38(4):247–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Agostino P, Ugolini A, Signori A, Silvestrini-Biavati A, Harrison JE, Riley P (2014) Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000979.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Algharbi M, Bazargani F, Dimberg L (2018) Do different maxillary expansion appliances influence the outcomes of the treatment? Eur J Orthod 40(1):97–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bucci R, D’Antò V, Rongo R, Valletta R, Martina R, Michelotti A (2016) Dental and skeletal effects of palatal expansion techniques: a systematic review of the current evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Oral Rehabil 43(7):543–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou Y, Long H, Ye N, Xue J, Yang X, Liao L et al (2014) The effectiveness of non-surgical maxillary expansion: A meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 36(2):233–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Petrén S, Bjerklin K, Bondemark L (2011) Stability of unilateral posterior crossbite correction in the mixed dentition: A randomized clinical trial with a 3-year follow-up. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(1):73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Godoy F, Godoy-Bezerra J, Rosenblatt A (2011) Treatment of posterior crossbite comparing 2 appliances: A community-based trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(1):e45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gül Amuk N, Karsli E, Kurt G (2019) Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning. Int Orthod 17(1):151–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nawi N, Mohamed AM, Nor MM, Ashar NA (2018) Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters. J Orofac Orthop 79(1):19–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sollenius O, Golež A, Primožič J, Ovsenik M, Bondemark L, Petrén S (2019) Three-dimensional evaluation of forced unilateral posterior crossbite correction in the mixed dentition: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 42(4):415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Oliva G, Huanca Ghislanzoni L, Dalessandri D, Silvestrini-Biavati A, Ugolini A (2020) Palatal changes in crossbite patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion vs untreated ones: A geometric morphometric study. Orthod Craniofac Res 23(4):439–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bjerklin K (2000) Follow-up control of patients with unilateral posterior cross-bite treated with expansion plates or the quad-helix appliance. J Orofac Orthop 61(2):112–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hermanson H, Kurol J, Rönnerman A (1985) Treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite with quad-helix and removable plates. A retrospective study. Eur J Orthod 7(2):97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Petrén S, Bondemark L (2008) Correction of unilateral posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133(6):790.e7–790.e13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandikçioglu M, Hazar S (1997) Skeletal and dental changes after maxillary expansion in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 111(3):321–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wiedel AP, Bondemark L (2015) Stability of anterior crossbite correction: A randomized controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Angle Orthod 85(2):189–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Cadenas de Llano-Pérula DDS, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A.-S. Van de Velde, L. De Boodt, M. Cadenas de Llano-Pérula, A. Laenen and G. Willems declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

The present is a retrospective cohort study in patients who underwent interceptive treatment by means of a removable expansion plate at the Department of Orthodontics, University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. This study has been approved (registration number s56398) by the ethics committee of the University Hospitals Leuven. Consent to participate was not required since the ethical commission grants an exception of informed consents to retrospective studies.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van de Velde, AS., De Boodt, L., Cadenas de Llano-Pérula, M. et al. Long-term effects of orthodontic interceptive expansion treatment. J Orofac Orthop (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00467-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00467-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation