Transpalatal arches, lingual arches and quad helix

Keyword(s):  
2013 ◽  
Vol 143 (5) ◽  
pp. 695-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Mucedero ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi ◽  
Veronica Giuntini ◽  
Andrea Vangelisti ◽  
James A. McNamara ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ola Sollenius ◽  
Aljaž Golež ◽  
Jasmina Primožič ◽  
Maja Ovsenik ◽  
Lars Bondemark ◽  
...  

Summary Objectives The objectives of this study were to assess the three-dimensional (3D) treatment changes (palatal surface area and volume) of forced unilateral posterior crossbite correction using either quad-helix or removable expansion plate appliances in the mixed dentition, and to compare the treatment changes with the three-dimensional changes occurring in age-matched untreated unilateral posterior crossbite patients as well as in subjects with normal occlusion and with no or mild orthodontic treatment need. Trial design Six-arm parallel group multicentre randomized controlled trial. Materials and methods One-hundred and thirty-five patients with unilateral posterior crossbite with functional shift were recruited. The patients were randomized by an independent person not involved in the trial. The randomization used blocks of 25, and the patients were randomized into the following five groups: quad-helix treatments in specialist orthodontic clinics (QHS), quad-helix treatments in general dentistry (QHG), removable expansion plate treatments in specialist orthodontic clinics (EPS), removable expansion plate treatments in general dentistry (EPG), and untreated crossbite (UC). Twenty-five patients with normal occlusion who served as normal controls were also included in the trial. Blinding of the outcome assessor and data analyst was accomplished. Data on all children were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis, regarding 3D palatal surface area, palatal projection area, and palatal shell volume; two-dimensional linear measurements were registered at the same time. Results After treatment, the surface and projection area and shell volume increased in the four treatment groups (QHS, QHG, EPS, and EPG). QHS increased significantly more than EPG for the surface and projection area. The QHS and EPS had significantly higher mean difference for shell volume. Limitations The trial considers a short-term evaluation. Conclusion After treatment, there were no significant differences between the four treatment groups and the normal group, which implies that the surface and projection area together with the shell volume for the four treatment groups and the normal group were equivalent. Trial registration The trial was registered with https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige, registration number: 220751.


1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 20-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Vandenbergh

When deciduous mandibular canine teeth are retained in the dog the permanent mandibular canine teeth are often lingually displaced. This paper describes the use of a modified Quad Helix appliance in correcting lingually displaced permanent mandibular canine teeth in the dog. This orthodontic case study follows the patient from initial diagnosis, treatment plan and therapy to 12 months post-therapy with detailed measurements, notations and photographs.


2011 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiko Nojima ◽  
Sakiko Takaku ◽  
Chiaki Murase ◽  
Yasushi Nishii ◽  
Kenji Sueishi

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-35
Author(s):  
Ramazan ALTUNBAŞ ◽  
Ümit GÜRTON ◽  
Deniz SAĞDIÇ ◽  
Hüseyin ÖLMEZ ◽  
Osman BENGİ ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Garcia Costa ◽  
Thaís Magalhães Galindo ◽  
Claudia Trindade Mattos ◽  
Adriana de Alcantara Cury-Saramago

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the duration of the retention period in growing patients undergoing maxillary expansion and its relation with posterior crossbite stability. METHODS: Search strategies were executed for electronic databases Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus, which were completed on January 15, 2016. The inclusion criteria included randomized, prospective or retrospective controlled trials in growing subjects with posterior crossbite; treated with maxillary expanders; retention phase after expansion; post-retention phase of at least 6 months. The exclusion criteria were anterior crossbite, craniofacial anomalies, surgery or another orthodontic intervention; case reports; author’s opinions articles, thesis, literature reviews and systematic reviews. The risk of bias of selected articles was assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Downs and Black checklist for non-RCTs. RESULTS: A total of 156 titles/abstracts was retrieved, 44 full-texts were examined, and 6 articles were selected and assessed for their methodological quality. The retention period after maxillary expansion ranged between 4 weeks and 16 months. Fixed (acrylic plate, Haas, Hyrax and quad-helix) or removable (Hawley and Hawley expander) appliances were used for retention. CONCLUSIONS: Six months of retention with either fixed or removable appliances seem to be enough to avoid relapse or to guarantee minimal changes in a short-term follow-up.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document