List of palatal expanders
This page lists different types of expanders that are available for the process of palatal expansion in the field of orthodontics.[1][2] There can be many types of transverse dimension appliances. These appliances can be used to achieve expansion in the maxillary arch. In past many years, different types of appliances have been made. These types are: 1) Tissue-borne 2) Tooth-borne 3) Slow Maxillary Expansion Type 4) Rapid Maxillary Expansion Type 5) Bone-Anchored Type
Types of expanders
Tissue-borne expander
Tissue supported expanders allow the forces to be applied directly to the tissues of palatal mucosa instead of teeth. The most common type of Tissue borne expander is known as the Haas Appliance. This appliance was popularized by Andrew Haas in 1961. This appliance involves bands placed on maxillary first premolar and first molars on each side. Haas appliance has palatal acrylic that is in contact with palatal mucosa. Inside the acrylic there is a jackscrew that is embedded for patients to make turns to expand the device. In addition to the acrylic, support wires also extend from the premolars and molars to the appliance to add additional rigidity to the appliance.
Proponents of tissue borne expansion believe that more bodily movement and less dental tipping is produced when an acrylic palatal coverage is added to the appliance. They believe that forces are dissipated through the mucosa and teeth. One of the disadvantages of this type of appliance is it leading to irritation of palatal mucosa.
Tooth-borne expander
Tooth supported expanders allow the forces to be applied directly to the teeth of maxillary arch instead of the tissue. The most common tooth borne expander is known as Hyrax or Biedermann Appliance. This appliance was developed by Bidermann. Hyrax is also known as the "Hygienic Appliance" because it does not lead to irritation of tissues due to the absence of palatal acrylic. The appliance is made mostly of stainless steel and includes bands being placed on maxillary first premolars and first molars. The appliance includes a jackscrew in the middle for patients to turn for expansion purposes. This appliance also has rigid wires extending from appliance to premolars and molars. It is important to note that the tooth borne expanders can be divided into the Bonded vs. Banded Type of expanders. Hyrax appliance falls under the bonded type appliance.
One of the concerns of this appliance is that due to the forces being applied only to the teeth, there may more dental tipping than skeletal expansion.
Comparison of different types
Many studies have been performed and published regarding the comparison of these two different types of appliance. It is important to note that the discrepancy that exists between different studies that has to do with the type of appliances they used in each category. A tooth borne appliance can be designed in many different ways and same with tissue borne appliance. The expanding protocol, retention protocol, exact timepoint of when the expansion was measured are some of the factors that can influence the results between different studies. Therefore, when evaluating studies and making conclusions, it is important to keep these confounding factors in mind. It is important to know that information here may be outdated within 5–10 years as new RCTs, systematic reviews & meta-analysis will be done and they may produce different results then what are stated below.
Tissue vs Tooth Borne expansion
In 2005 Garib et al.,[3] stated in their study that Tooth-borne (Hyrax) and tooth tissue-borne (Haas-type) expanders tended to produce similar orthopedic effects. In both methods, RME led to buccal movement of the maxillary posterior teeth, by tipping and bodily translation. They also mentioned that the second premolars displayed more buccal tipping than the supporting teeth and this could be due to 2nd premolars not being banded to the appliance. Another study performed by Weissheimer et al.,[4] which was a randomized control trial, stated that the both appliances were efficient in correcting a transverse maxillary deficiency. Both the appliances showed pure skeletal expansion which was greater than actual dental expansion. The hyrax-type expander produced greater orthopedic effects than did the Haas-type expander, but this effect was less than 0.5 mm per side and might not be clinically significant.
Tooth borne vs Bone borne expansion
A study published by Lin et al.[5] in 2015 found that for patients in late adolescence, bone-borne expanders produced greater orthopedic effects and fewer dento-alveolar side effects compared to the hyrax expanders. However, a study published by Lagravere et al.[6] in 2010, stated that there was no difference between the bone borne and tooth borne expansion devices. Both types of expanders showed similar results and that the greatest changes were seen in the transverse dimension, changes in the vertical and anteroposterior dimensions were negligible.
Rapid vs Slow expansion
A study published by Martina et al.[7] stated that rapid maxillary expansion is not more effective than slow maxillary expansion in expanding the maxilla in patients with posterior crossbite. It is important to keep in mind that different studies use different rapid and slow expansion devices and thus comparability between studies is difficult. A systematic review done by Zhou et al.[8] stated that Slow maxillary expansion was superior to Rapid maxillary expansion in expanding molar region of maxillary arch but no difference was found when comparing their effectiveness in maxillary anterior region.
List
- Arnold Appliance
- Bioantor Appliance
- Butterfly Expander
- Coffin Spring
- Crozat Appliance
- Derichsweiler Appliance
- Double-Hinged Expander (Alt-RAMEC Technique)
- Dresden-Distractor
- Expansion Screw
- Fan Shaped Maxillary Expander
- Fixed Fan Gear Appliance
- Frankel Appliance
- Goshgarian Palatal Arch
- Haas Expander
- Hilgers Palatal Expander
- Hyrax Expander
- Issacson Appliance
- Lower Schwarz Appliance
- Niti Palatal Expander
- Porter W Expander
- Rapid Palatal Expander
- Reverse Loop Palatal Arch
- Skeletal Expander
- Slim Gear Appliance
- Super Screw Appliance
- Transpalatal arch (TPA)
- Quad Helix
- Spring Jet
- W Arch
- Y Plate
References
- ^ Timms, Donald J. (1986-07-01). Rapid Maxillary Expansion. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 9780931386497.
- ^ Rapid Maxillary Expansion. Saarbrücken. 2015-01-01. ISBN 9783659612022.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Garib, Daniela G.; Henriques, José Fernando Castanha; Janson, Guilherme; Freitas, Marcos Roberto; Coelho, Regis Antonio (2005-07-01). "Rapid maxillary expansion--tooth tissue-borne versus tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal effects". The Angle Orthodontist. 75 (4): 548–557. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[548:RMETVT]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0003-3219. PMID 16097223.
- ^ Weissheimer, André; de Menezes, Luciane Macedo; Mezomo, Mauricio; Dias, Daniela Marchiori; de Lima, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana; Rizzatto, Susana Maria Deon (2011-09-01). "Immediate effects of rapid maxillary expansion with Haas-type and hyrax-type expanders: a randomized clinical trial". American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics: Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 140 (3): 366–376. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.025. ISSN 1097-6752. PMID 21889081.
- ^ Lin, Lu; Ahn, Hyo-Won; Kim, Su-Jung; Moon, Sung-Chul; Kim, Seong-Hun; Nelson, Gerald (2014-06-19). "Tooth-borne vs bone-borne rapid maxillary expanders in late adolescence". The Angle Orthodontist. 85 (2): 253–262. doi:10.2319/030514-156.1.
- ^ Lagravère, Manuel O.; Carey, Jason; Heo, Giseon; Toogood, Roger W.; Major, Paul W. (2010-03-01). "Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial". American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics: Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 137 (3): 304.e1–12, discussion 304–305. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.09.016. ISSN 1097-6752. PMID 20197161.
- ^ Martina, R.; Cioffi, I.; Farella, M.; Leone, P.; Manzo, P.; Matarese, G.; Portelli, M.; Nucera, R.; Cordasco, G. (2012-08-01). "Transverse changes determined by rapid and slow maxillary expansion – a low-dose CT-based randomized controlled trial". Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research. 15 (3): 159–168. doi:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2012.01543.x. ISSN 1601-6343.
- ^ Zhou, Yang; Long, Hu; Ye, Niansong; Xue, Junjie; Yang, Xin; Liao, Lina; Lai, Wenli (2014-04-01). "The effectiveness of non-surgical maxillary expansion: a meta-analysis". European Journal of Orthodontics. 36 (2): 233–242. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjt044. ISSN 1460-2210. PMID 23828862.