ABSTRACT
Objective@#To evaluate and compare a series of volume changes in the nasal cavity (NC), nasopharynx, oropharynx, and maxillary sinuses (MS) in growing Class III patients after either rapid palatal expansion (RPE) or alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) followed by facemask (FM) therapy, by using conebeam computed tomography (CBCT). @*Methods@#Forty growing Class III patients were retrospectively selected and divided into two matched groups: RPE/FM (14 females, 6 males; mean age, 9.66 ± 1.23 years) and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups (14 females, 6 males; mean age, 10.28 ± 1.45 years). The anteroposterior and vertical displacements of Point A, the volumes of the NC, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, and MS were measured at different time points: pretreatment (T1), postexpansion (T2), and postprotraction (T3). @*Results@#Both groups demonstrated significant maxilla advancement (by 1.3 mm) during expansion, with a statistically significant intergroup difference during protraction (RPE/FM, 1.1 mm; Alt-RAMEC/FM, 2.4 mm; p < 0.05) and throughout the treatment (RPE/FM, 2.4 mm; Alt-RAMEC/FM, 3.7 mm; p < 0.05). NC and nasopharyngeal airway volumes increased significantly in both groups after expansion, protraction, and treatment. The oropharyngeal and MS volumes increased in both groups after protraction and post-treatment. However, no volumetric differences were observed between the two groups. @*Conclusions@#There was no significant difference in airway volume changes, including NC, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal airway, and MS, between RPE/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups at different time points. Although there was significantly more forward movement after protraction in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group, the difference was deemed too small to be clinically relevant.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Prior to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), orthodontic competence included radiological interpretation. Nevertheless, maxillary impacted canines (MICs), because of their position and adjacent complex anatomy, have been challenging to interpret, particularly with regard to root resorption. Although CBCT crosssectional reconstructions of MICs yielded clearer insights into its diagnosis and treatment planning, the value of simultaneously using 2 different cross-sectional or multiplanar reconstructions of the CBCT datasets - orthogonal and curved/panoramic multiplanar reconstructions - has hitherto not been considered. @*Materials and Methods@#Both orthogonal and curved/panoramic multiplanar reconstruction series of 5 screenshots were each reconstructed from the 5 cm × 5 cm CBCT datasets of 15 separate MICs. Fifteen credentialled and experienced orthodontist volunteers reviewed 2 separate PowerPoints of 15 randomized series each, 1 week apart.Their review considered 6 factors that could affect treatment: the position and level of the MIC, the presence or absence of root resorption, ankylosis, cysts, and dilaceration. @*Results@#All 15 orthodontists were statistically similar regarding overall years of experience and of CBCT use. Although either reconstruction alone allowed the orthodontists to determine whether ankylosis and, to a lesser extent, most of the other features were present or absent in the MIC, reviewing both reconstructions together was necessary to determine whether root resorption was present or absent in the adjacent tooth. @*Conclusion@#Reviewing both orthogonal and curved/panoramic multiplanar reconstructions was necessary to evaluate the presence or absence of root resorption in the teeth adjacent to MICs and that of many other features. (Imaging Sci Dent 2023; 53: 145-51)