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
- Author:
Weitao LIU
1
;
Shaonan ZHOU
;
Edwin YEN
;
Bingshuang ZOU
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:The Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2023;53(3):175-184
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
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.
