대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제54권6호
  • /
  • Pages.422-431
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of condylar dimension and position following rapid maxillary expansion with tooth- or tooth-bone-borne appliances

  • 투고 : 2024.07.16
  • 심사 : 2024.10.09
  • 발행 : 2024.11.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To assess and compare changes in the dimension and position of the mandibular condyle after tooth-borne (Hyrax) and tooth-bone-borne (Hybrid Hyrax) expansion. Methods: Twenty-five patients who underwent expansion with either tooth-borne appliances (8 girls, 5 boys; mean age 14.3 ± 2.3 years) or tooth-bone-borne appliances (6 girls, 6 boys; mean age 13.8 ± 2.2 years) were examined. Condylar and glenoid fossa morphology before (T0) and 3 months after (T1) expansion were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography. Condylar measurements (anterior, posterior, and superior joint spaces; condylar height, length, and width), along with sagittal and vertical skeletal and maxillary transversal measurements, were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software. Wilcoxon and Paired t tests were used for T0 and T1 evaluations, and the Mann-Whitney U test for intergroup comparisons. Results: At both T0 and T1, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of condylar dimensions or the position of the condyle within the glenoid fossa. Maxillary transversal measurements increased after expansion in both groups (P < 0.01), with a significantly greater increase in first premolar width in the Hyrax group (P < 0.05). The vertical position of the posterior teeth showed no noteworthy changes (P > 0.05), except for the right second premolar. Temporomandibular joint measurements did not significantly change in either group after treatment (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Neither tooth-borne nor tooth-bone-borne expansion caused significant changes in the condylar dimensions and position at the end of treatment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod 1970;57:219-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(70)90241-1 
  2. Mehta S, Chen PJ, Vich ML, Upadhyay M, Tadinada A, Yadav S. Bone-anchored versus tooth-anchored expansion appliances: long-term effects on the condyle-fossa relationship. J World Fed Orthod 2021;10:144-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.07.001 
  3. Lin L, Ahn HW, Kim SJ, Moon SC, Kim SH, Nelson G. Tooth-borne vs bone-borne rapid maxillary expanders in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2015;85:253-62. https://doi.org/10.2319/030514-156.1 
  4. Baysal A, Uysal T, Veli I, Ozer T, Karadede I, Hekimoglu S. Evaluation of alveolar bone loss following rapid maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:83-95. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.83 
  5. Kim YH, Yang SM, Kim S, Lee JY, Kim KE, Gianelly AA, et al. Midpalatal miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage: factors affecting clinical success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.036 
  6. Garib D, Miranda F, Palomo JM, Pugliese F, da Cunha Bastos JC, Dos Santos AM, et al. Orthopedic outcomes of hybrid and conventional Hyrax expanders. Angle Orthod 2021;91:178-86. https://doi.org/10.2319/060820-527.1 
  7. McLeod L, Hernandez IA, Heo G, Lagravere MO. Condylar positional changes in rapid maxillary expansion assessed with cone-beam computer tomography. Int Orthod 2016;14:342-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2016.07.006 
  8. Lam PH, Sadowsky C, Omerza F. Mandibular asymmetry and condylar position in children with unilateral posterior crossbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:569-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70282-9 
  9. Nerder PH, Bakke M, Solow B. The functional shift of the mandible in unilateral posterior crossbite and the adaptation of the temporomandibular joints: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:155-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.2.155 
  10. Hesse KL, Artun J, Joondeph DR, Kennedy DB. Changes in condylar postition and occlusion associated with maxillary expansion for correction of functional unilateral posterior crossbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:410-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(97)80023-6 
  11. Torres D, Lopes J, Magno MB, Cople Maia L, Normando D, Leao PB. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on temporomandibular joints. Angle Orthod 2020;90:442-56. https://doi.org/10.2319/080619-517.1 
  12. Wang Z, Spoon ME, Khan J, Barmak AB, Rossouw PE, Michelogiannakis D. Cone beam computed tomographic evaluation of the changes in condylar position in growing patients with unilateral posterior crossbite undergoing rapid maxillary expansion followed by fixed orthodontic therapy. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2021;22:959-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-021-00628-z 
  13. Pinto AS, Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS, Chen P. Morphological and positional asymmetries of young children with functional unilateral posterior crossbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:513-20. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.118627a 
  14. Huqh MZU, Hassan R, Rahman RA, Yusof A, Narmada IB, Ahmad W. The short-term effect of active skeletonized sutural distractor appliance on temporomandibular joint morphology of class III malocclusion subjects. Eur J Dent 2021;15:523-32. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1722483 
  15. Kecik D, Kocadereli I, Saatci I. Evaluation of the treatment changes of functional posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:202-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.03.030 
  16. Arat FE, Arat ZM, Tompson B, Tanju S, Erden I. Muscular and condylar response to rapid maxillary expansion. Part 2: magnetic resonance imaging study of the temporomandibular joint. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:823-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.029 
  17. Ghoussoub MS, Rifai K, Garcia R, Sleilaty G. Effect of rapid maxillary expansion on glenoid fossa and condyle-fossa relationship in growing patients (MEGP): study protocol for a controlled clinical trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8:130-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_458_17 
  18. Gunyuz Toklu M, Germec-Cakan D, Tozlu M. Periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expansion appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:97-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.02.022 
  19. Mustu uC. Three-dimensional evaluation of upper airway following tooth and tooth-bone borne rapid maxillary expansion [PhD dissertation]. Istanbul: Yeditepe University; 2015. https://platform.almanhal.com/Details/Thesis/2000089013 
  20. Melgaco CA, Columbano Neto J, Jurach EM, Nojima Mda C, Nojima LI. Immediate changes in condylar position after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:771-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.01.024 
  21. Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE. Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2013;14:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-36 
  22. Lascala CA, Panella J, Marques MM. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004;33:291-4. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/25500850 
  23. Nithin, Ahmed J, Sujir N, Shenoy N, Binnal A, Ongole R. Morphological assessment of TMJ spaces, mandibular condyle, and glenoid fossa using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): a retrospective analysis. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021;31:78-85. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1729488 
  24. Leonardi R, Caltabiano M, Cavallini C, Sicurezza E, Barbato E, Spampinato C, et al. Condyle fossa relationship associated with functional posterior crossbite, before and after rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2012;82:1040-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/112211-725.1 
  25. Myers DR, Barenie JT, Bell RA, Williamson EH. Condylar position in children with functional posterior crossbites: before and after crossbite correction. Pediatr Dent 1980;2:190-4. 
  26. Thurston MH. Dental and facial characteristics associated with an unilateral posterior crossbite in the permanent dentition [PhD dissertation]. Los Angeles: University of California; 1986. https://search.worldcat.org/ko/title/13880631 
  27. Lione R, Franchi L, Cozza P. Does rapid maxillary expansion induce adverse effects in growing subjects? Angle Orthod 2013;83:172-82. https://doi.org/10.2319/041012-300.1 
  28. Chung CH, Font B. Skeletal and dental changes in the sagittal, vertical, and transverse dimensions after rapid palatal expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:569-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.035 
  29. Lagravere MO, Carey J, Heo G, Toogood RW, Major PW. Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:304.e1-12; discussion 304-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.09.016 
  30. Rossi M, Rossi A, Abrao J. Skeletal alterations associated with the use of bonded rapid maxillary expansion appliance. Braz Dent J 2011;22:334-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402011000400013 
  31. Reed N, Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Comparison of treatment outcomes with banded and bonded RPE appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70300-8 
  32. Sandikcioglu M, Hazar S. Skeletal and dental changes after maxillary expansion in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:321-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70191-4 
  33. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1-12; discussion e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010