An alternative approach for the surgical correction of unilateral crossbite.

This case report aims to describe a modified surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion technique to treat an asymmetrical posterior crossbite with no mandibular shift without causing an interincisal diastema. A clinical patient with an asymmetrical crossbite, large tooth-size-arch length, and Bolton discrepancy is used to illustrate the modified technique. Instead of traditional osteotomies, in this technique, the osteotomy is done between the maxillary right canine and lateral incisor (connecting the piriform aperture to the alveolar process) along with a unilateral LeFort I osteotomy. The expansion forces are produced by the activation of a conventional hyrax appliance. The skeletal unilateral crossbite was corrected without major changes to the opposite side and without causing an anesthetic diastema between the maxillary central incisors. A mandibular incisor extraction produced the space needed to treat the tooth size-arch length and corrected the Bolton discrepancy. This allowed a successful treatment of the problems initially presented by the patient.

Microimplant assisted rapid palatal expansion vs surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion for maxillary transverse discrepancy treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the skeletal and dental changes of microimplant assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) with those produced by surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARPE) in postpeak adolescents and adults. METHODS: The sample comprised 17 patients (mean age, 26 ± 11 years) selected for the MARPE group and 15 (mean age, 28.5 ± 10.5 years) selected for the SARPE group. Cone-beam computed tomography scans taken just before and after the expansion were used to assess dental and skeletal changes and compare the changes between the groups. RESULTS: MARPE showed greater transversal skeletal changes in the midface and posterior and anterior maxillary base measurements. The transverse displacement of the alveolar process was greater but not significant for the SARPE group than the MARPE group. Regarding dental effects, the root distance measurements did not differ between the groups, but SARPE produced a significantly greater increase in intermolar and interpremolar distance and a greater buccal inclination of the alveolar process and supporting teeth than MARPE. CONCLUSIONS: The MARPE technique showed an increase in skeletal transverse maxillary expansion at the midface and basal bone compared with SARPE, especially at the posterior palatal region; however, no difference was found in the expansion of the alveolar process between the 2 methods. MARPE presented a more parallel expansion in both a coronal and axial view, whereas SARPE led to a V-shaped opening. The greater buccal inclination of the alveolar process and supporting teeth was observed in the SARPE group.

Expansion with transpalatal arch or continuous arch mechanics.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the 3-dimensional force system produced by transpalatal arch (TPA) mechanics with that produced by a continuous arch (CA) on the expansion of maxillary first molars. METHODS: A patient's model with 2 molars in 4-mm crossbite had orthodontic appliances bonded to all teeth. The first and the second molars were connected to two 3-dimensional load cells to compare the forces in the transverse and anteroposterior planes (Fx and Fy) and the rotational moments (Mz) produced in both molars by the expanded TPA and by 0.016-in nickel-titanium CA. The data were evaluated using 6 independent t tests, and the net moment at the molar's center of resistance was also calculated. RESULTS: All forces and moments were different at both molars. At the first molar, CA produced Fx of 2.60 N, Fy of -0.08 N, Mz of -5.16 N·mm, and Net Mz of -5.68 N·mm, whereas the TPA produced Fx of 2.87 N, Fy of -0.60 N, Mz of -22.08 N·mm, and Net Mz of -25.09 N·mm. At the second molar, the TPA did not produce significant forces and moments, whereas the CA produced Fx of -1.00 N, Mz of 3.95 N·mm, Fy of -0.84 N, and Net Mz of -0.67 N·mm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings in a clinical set up with the specific horseshoe TPA and archwire tested, with the TPA used only on the first molars and the CA used from one second molar to the other, the mechanics produced different expansion forces at the first molar. The TPA produced a larger rotational side effect on the first molar, whereas the CA produced side effects on the second molar.