Dataset Information

Periodontal effects of maxillary expansion in adults using non-surgical expanders with skeletal anchorage vs. surgically assisted maxillary expansion: a systematic review

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Describe and compare harmful periodontal effects as a consequence of maxillary expansion in adult patients with different types of anchorage devices in non-surgical expanders with skeletal anchorage and surgically assisted maxillary expansion.

Materials and methods

An exhaustive search was carried out on the electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane and LILACS. Additionally, journal references and grey literature were searched without any restrictions. After the selection and extraction process; risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-1 Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for randomized trials and cohort studies, respectively.

Results

Of 621 studies retrieved from the searches, six were finally included in this review. One of them presented a low risk bias, while five were excellent respective to selection, comparability and outcomes. Results showed that maxillary expansion in adults using non-surgical expanders (bone-borne or tooth-bone-borne with bicortical skeletal anchorage) produce less harmful periodontal effects, such as: alveolar bending with an average range from 0.92° to 2.32°, compared to surgically assisted maxillary expansion (tooth-borne) of 6.4°; dental inclination with an average range from 0.07° to 2.4°, compared to surgically assisted maxillary expansion (tooth-borne) with a range from 2.01° to 5.56°.

Conclusions

Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the bone-borne or tooth-bone-borne with bicortical skeletal anchorage produces fewer undesirable periodontal effects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13005-021-00299-7.

SUBMITTER: Vidalon J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8579525 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study compared the area and minimal section of the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx in cases treated with different methods of microimplant-assisted expansion.MethodsBased on a pilot study to calculate the sample size, 30 patients with transverse maxillary deficiency over 14 years of age were retrospectively selected. These patients had received two different types of microimplant-assisted maxillary expansion treatment (MARPE and BAME). The patient underwent Cone-Beam computed tomography (CBCT) before and after treatment (mean time 1.5 months) with MARPE or BAME and upper airway measurements (volume and minimum cross-sectional area) were taken to assess upper airways changes and compare changes between the groups. A paired sample t-test was performed to evaluate the T0-T1 change of airway measurements obtained with MARPE and BAME, and a student t-test to compare changes in airway measurements between MARPE and BAME.ResultsThis investigation shows a statistically significant increase in total nasopharyngeal airway volume (0.59 ± 1.42 cm3; p < 0.01), total oropharyngeal airway volume (3.83 ± 7.53 cm3; p < 0.01) and minimum oropharyngeal cross-section (53.23 ± 126.46 mm2; p < 0.05) in all cases treated with micro-screw assisted expansion. The minimal cross-sectional area of the oropharynx ((79.12 ± 142.28 mm2; p < 0.05) and hypopharynx (59.87 ± 89.79 mm2; p < 0.05) showed significant changes for cases treated with BAME. As for the comparison between cases treated with MARPE and BAME, no differences in upper airway changes have been observed, except for the minimum cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity, which increases for MARPE (52.05 ± 132.91 mm2) and decreases for BAME (-34.10 ± 90.85 mm2).ConclusionsA significant increase in total area and minimal section at the level of nasopharynx and oropharynx was observed in cases treated with BAME. Regarding the comparison of MARPE and BAME treatments, no differences were found in the total airway volume and minimal section in upper airway except for the minimum cross section of the nasal cavity that increases for MARPE and decreases for BAME.

Project description:BackgroundSurgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) generates an uncomfortable postoperative period accompanied by pain, edema, and paresthesia. There are few studies on the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) after SARME and it was not possible to find studies on the efficacy of light emitted by diode (LED) after this type of intervention. The main objective of the study will be to evaluate the efficacy of PBM with LED in the control of pain, facial edema, paresthesia, and bone repair after SARME.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 72 participants aged from 18 to 45 years, who search the Department of Buccomaxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology of Mandaqui Hospital Complex, will be conducted. Immediately after surgeries, the participant will be inserted into the placebo or LED group. In the LED group, the participants will receive PBM with an extraoral device (660 and 850 nm with 6 J per point) and an intraoral device (660 nm with 2 J per point) and in the control group the person in charge of the application will simulate the irradiation with the devices kept off. The applications will be in the immediate postoperative period, 1, 2, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after the end of the surgeries, when the evaluations will also be performed. Facial measurements, extra and intraoral sensitivity, pain and bone repair will be evaluated. Secondarily, data regarding the occurrence of headache; otalgia; nausea; bruising; nasolacrimation; epistaxis; dysphagia; systemic and superficial temperature in the operated region; use of analgesics and anti-inflammatories; anxiety and impact of oral health on the participants' quality of life will be computed.DiscussionSince PBM has shown positive effects on postoperative complications of other types of oral surgery and also has a positive effect on bone repair after maxillary disjunction, surgically assisted or not, it seems clear the need to evaluate its performance regarding pain, edema, and paresthesia after these surgeries.Trial registrationThis protocol was registered in Clinical Trials platform (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) with the number NCT03814525, first published and last updated on January 24, 2019.