Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Prog Orthod. 2019 Feb 25;20(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0261-5.

Are there benefits from using bone-borne maxillary expansion instead of tooth-borne maxillary expansion? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
2
Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland. snpapage@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The aim of the current systematic review was to compare the clinical effects of bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) with conventional tooth-borne RME in the treatment of maxillary deficiency.

METHODS:

Nine databases were searched up to September 2018 for randomized clinical trials comparing bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME to conventional tooth-borne RME in patients of any age or sex. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.

RESULTS:

A total of 12 papers on 6 unique trials with 264 patients (42.4% male; average age 12.3 years) were finally included. Limited evidence indicated that bone-borne RME was associated with greater suture opening at the first molar post-retention (1 trial; MD 2.0 mm; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 mm; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant differences could be found regarding tooth inclination, nasal cavity width, and root resorption (very low to low evidence quality). Hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME was associated with less buccal tipping of the first premolar (2 trials; MD - 4.0°; 95% CI - 0.9 to - 7.1°; moderate evidence quality) and lower nasal airway resistance post-retention (1 trial; MD - 0.2 Pa s/cm3; 95% CI - 0.4 to 0 Pa s/cm3; moderate evidence quality) compared to tooth-borne RME, while no significant difference could be found regarding skeletal maxillary width, molar inclination, and analgesic use (low to moderate evidence quality). The main limitations affecting the validity of the present findings were (a) imprecision due to the inclusion of few trials with limited sample sizes that precluded robust detection of existing differences and (b) methodological issues of the included trials that could lead to bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

Limited evidence from randomized trials indicates that bone-borne or hybrid tooth-bone-borne RME might present advantages in terms of increased sutural opening, reduced tooth tipping, and lower nasal airway resistance compared to conventional tooth-borne RME. However, the limited number of existing studies and issues in their conduct or reporting preclude the drawing of definite conclusions.

REVIEW REGISTRATION:

PROSPERO ( CRD42017079107 ).

KEYWORDS:

Adverse effects; Clinical trials; Effectiveness; Maxillary expansion; Meta-analysis; Orthodontics; Skeletal anchorage; Systematic review

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center