The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of changes in the nasal cavity, pharyngeal airway, and maxillary sinus volumes after expansion and maxillary protraction with two protocols: Rapid palatal expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction

  • Weitao Liu (Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University) ;
  • Shaonan Zhou (Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University) ;
  • Edwin Yen (Department of Oral Health Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia) ;
  • Bingshuang Zou (Department of Oral Health Science, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia)
  • Received : 2022.03.31
  • Accepted : 2023.02.05
  • Published : 2023.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 cone-beam 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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the American Association of Orthodontists (AAOF) Orthodontic Faculty Development Fellowship Award (2019).

References

  1. Wells AP, Sarver DM, Proffit WR. Long-term efficacy of reverse pull headgear therapy. Angle Orthod 2006;76:915-22. https://doi.org/10.2319/091605-328
  2. Souki BQ, Nieri M, Pavoni C, Pavan Barros HM, Junqueira Pereira T, Giuntini V, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for long-term unsuccess of early treatment of Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 2020;42:200-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz031
  3. Guyer EC, Ellis EE 3rd, McNamara JA Jr, Behrents RG. Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. Angle Orthod 1986;56:7-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3485393/
  4. Ngan PW, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH. Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin Orthod 1997;3:255-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80058-8
  5. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:299-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.030
  6. Lee WC, Shieh YS, Liao YF, Lee CH, Huang CS. Long-term maxillary anteroposterior changes following maxillary protraction with or without expansion: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS One 2021;16:e0247027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247027
  7. Liou EJ, Tsai WC. A new protocol for maxillary protraction in cleft patients: repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005;42:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-107.1
  8. Liou EJ. Effective maxillary orthopedic protraction for growing Class III patients: a clinical application simulates distraction osteogenesis. Prog Orthod 2005;6:154-71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16276426/
  9. Isci D, Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S. Activation-deactivation rapid palatal expansion and reverse headgear in Class III cases. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:706-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq006
  10. Masucci C, Franchi L, Giuntini V, Defraia E. Shortterm effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of Class III malocclusion: a controlled study. Orthod Craniofac Res 2014;17:259-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12051
  11. Liu Y, Hou R, Jin H, Zhang X, Wu Z, Li Z, et al. Relative effectiveness of facemask therapy with alternate maxillary expansion and constriction in the early treatment of Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;159:321-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.028
  12. Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:641-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.038
  13. Fischer B, Masucci C, Ruellas A, Cevidanes L, Giuntini V, Nieri M, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of the maxillary effects of two orthopaedic protocols for the treatment of Class III malocclusion: a prospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res 2018;21:248-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12247
  14. Ozbilen EO, Yilmaz HN, Acar YB. Does Alt-RAMEC protocol and facemask treatment affect dentoalveolar structures? Angle Orthod 2021;91:626-33. https://doi.org/10.2319/111620-940.1
  15. Kale B, Buyukcavus MH. Determining the short-term effects of different maxillary protraction methods on pharyngeal airway dimensions. Orthod Craniofac Res 2021;24:543-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12471
  16. Lee JW, Park KH, Kim SH, Park YG, Kim SJ. Correlation between skeletal changes by maxillary protraction and upper airway dimensions. Angle Orthod 2011;81:426-32. https://doi.org/10.2319/082610-499.1
  17. Pamporakis P, Nevzatoglu S, Kucukkeles N. Three-dimensional alterations in pharyngeal airway and maxillary sinus volumes in Class III maxillary deficiency subjects undergoing orthopedic facemask treatment. Angle Orthod 2014;84:701-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/060513-430.1
  18. Iwasaki T, Suga H, Yanagisawa-Minami A, Sato H, Sato-Hashiguchi M, Shirazawa Y, et al. Relationships among tongue volume, hyoid position, airway volume and maxillofacial form in paediatric patients with Class-I, Class-II and Class-III malocclusions. Orthod Craniofac Res 2019;22:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12251
  19. Adobes Martin M, Lipani E, Alvarado Lorenzo A, Bernes Martinez L, Aiuto R, Dioguardi M, et al. The effect of maxillary protraction, with or without rapid palatal expansion, on airway dimensions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2020;21:262-70. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.04.2
  20. Yilmaz BS, Kucukkeles N. Skeletal, soft tissue, and airway changes following the alternate maxillary expansions and constrictions protocol. Angle Orthod 2014;84:868-77. https://doi.org/10.2319/092713-705.1
  21. Onem Ozbilen E, Yilmaz HN, Kucukkeles N. Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy. Korean J Orthod 2019;49:49-58. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.1.49
  22. Celikoglu M, Buyukcavus MH. Changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions and hyoid bone position after maxillary protraction with different alternate rapid maxillary expansion and construction protocols: a prospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 2017;87:519-25. https://doi.org/10.2319/082316-632.1
  23. Garrett BJ, Caruso JM, Rungcharassaeng K, Farrage JR, Kim JS, Taylor GD. Skeletal effects to the maxilla after rapid maxillary expansion assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:8-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.004
  24. Smith T, Ghoneima A, Stewart K, Liu S, Eckert G, Halum S, et al. Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of airway volume changes after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:618-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.017
  25. Dias RR, Takeshita WM, Sverzut AT, Trivellato AE, Sverzut CE. Linear analysis of the nasal septum in patients treated with surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;159:71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.11.021
  26. Abdalla Y, Brown L, Sonnesen L. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on upper airway volume: a three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study. Angle Orthod 2019;89:917-23. https://doi.org/10.2319/101218-738.1
  27. Zimmerman JN, Vora SR, Pliska BT. Reliability of upper airway assessment using CBCT. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:101-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy058
  28. da Luz Vieira G, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Rizzatto S. Dentoskeletal effects of maxillary protraction in cleft patients with repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009;46:391-8. https://doi.org/10.1597/07-144.1
  29. Celebi F, Celikdelen M. Comparison of the changes following two treatment approaches: rapid maxillary expansion versus alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction. Turk J Orthod 2020;33:1-7. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19023
  30. Lemos Rinaldi MR, Azeredo F, Martinelli de Lima E, Deon Rizzatto SM, Sameshima G, Macedo de Menezes L. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of bone plate and root length after maxillary expansion using tooth-borne and tooth-tissue-borne banded expanders. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:504-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.018
  31. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Mucedero M, Cozza P. Treatment and post-treatment effects of facemask therapy on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:346-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp092
  32. Canturk BH, Celikoglu M. Comparison of the effects of face mask treatment started simultaneously and after the completion of the alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction procedure. Angle Orthod 2015;85:284-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/031114-176.1
  33. Yen SL. Protocols for late maxillary protraction in cleft lip and palate patients at childrens hospital Los Angeles. Semin Orthod 2011;17:138-48. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2011.01.001
  34. Almuzian M, Almukhtar A, Ulhaq A, Alharbi F, Darendeliler MA. 3D effects of a bone-anchored intraoral protraction in treating class III growing patient: a pilot study. Prog Orthod 2019;20:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0290-0
  35. Kaya D, Kocadereli I, Kan B, Tasar F. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Angle Orthod 2011;81:639-46. https://doi.org/10.2319/081010-473.1
  36. Meazzini MC, Torre C, Cappello A, Tintinelli R, De Ponti E, Mazzoleni F. Long-term follow-up of late maxillary orthopedic advancement with the Liou-Alternate rapid maxillary expansion-constriction technique in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;160:221-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.04.027
  37. Niu X, Di Carlo G, Cornelis MA, Cattaneo PM. Three-dimensional analyses of short- and long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion on nasal cavity and upper airway: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020;23:250-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12378