Evidence Hub

Maxillary dentoskeletal outcomes of the expander with differential opening and the fan-type expander: a randomized controlled trial

C. Massaro, D. Garib, L. Cevidanes, G. Janson, M. Yatabe, J. Lauris, A. Ruellas

Clinical Oral Investigations, 2021

24 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the maxillary dentoskeletal outcomes of the expander with differential opening (EDO) and the fan-type expander (FE). Forty-eight patients with maxillary arch constriction in the mixed dentition were randomly allocated into EDO and FE groups. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were acquired before and after expansion. Linear and angular three-dimensional changes were assessed after cranial base superimposition using the ITK-SNAP and the 3D Slicer software. T or Mann-Whitney U tests were used for intergroup comparisons (P<0.05). The EDO group comprised 24 patients treated with the EDO (13 female, 11 male; 7.6 years). The FE group comprised 24 patients treated with the FE (14 female, 10 male; 7.8 years). Skeletal lateral displacements were greater in the EDO group with greater expansion in the orbital, nasal cavity, zygomatic bone, and palate regions (mean intergroup differences of 0.4, 0.8, 0.9, and 1.1 mm, respectively). Intercanine expansion and canine buccal inclination were greater in the FE group, while intermolar distance changes and molar buccal inclination were greater in the EDO group. Similar changes were observed for vertical and anteroposterior displacements and palatal plane rotation. The EDO produced greater transverse skeletal expansion compared to the FE, with similar vertical and anteroposterior effects. Dental changes were greater in the molar region for patients treated with the EDO and in the canine region for patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 24 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free