Objectives: To compare the effects of quad helix (QH) anchored on permanent molars versus rapid maxillary expansion (RME) anchored on deciduous teeth on palatal morphology in early mixed dentition patients. Trial design: A two-arm randomized controlled trial, together with a non-randomized normal bite data for comparison. Methods: Seventy-one patients (mean age: QH = 9.3 years; RME = 9.4 years) with unilateral posterior crossbite were analysed. The QH group (n = 36) and RME group (n = 35) were evaluated at baseline (T0), post-retention (T2), and one-year post-treatment (T3). A third age- and sex-matched control group (n = 22; mean age = 9.1 years) served as a normative reference. Evaluated outcomes were 3D palatal measurements, as well as treatment success rate and total treatment duration. Results: Both treatment groups showed significant increases in palatal surface area, projection plane area, and volume from T0 to T3. The RME group experienced a greater increase in palatal surface area (7.0%) compared to the QH group (4.2%) over the same period (P = 0.045). Palatal volume increased notably more in the RME group during active treatment (T0–T2), with an 11.2% gain versus 6.8% in the QH group (P = 0.046). By T3, palatal vault dimensions had normalized in both groups compared to the control group. The RME group completed treatment 97 days earlier than the QH group. Conclusions: Treatment with either QH or RME resulted in normalized palatal vaults compared to the control group. RME had a significantly shorter treatment time but achieved similar success in correcting posterior crossbite as QH. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT04458506) and Researchweb.org (project number 260581).

A missing maxillary lateral incisor presents a treatment challenge, especially in growing patients. In this setting, orthodontists, prosthodontists and patients are most often engaged in treatment planning. The most common treatment alternatives are orthodontic space closure, implant-supported prosthesis and resin-bonded partial prosthesis. This narrative review presents the most up-to-date, evidence-based roadmap for this orthodontic issue.

Introduction and objective: Agenesis of one or more teeth is common among patients who are referred for orthodontic treatment. The most common treatments are orthodontic space closure (SC) and implant replacement (IR), which are widely studied, but the experiences of patients receiving these treatments have received little attention. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore how treatments to address missing maxillary lateral incisors (MMLIs) are experienced by individuals who are treated using either orthodontic SC or IR.

Materials and methods: This study is conducted in Sweden and based on semi-structured interviews with 13 individuals who have completed treatment, either orthodontic SC (n = 7) or IR (n = 6), to address the lack of one or two maxillary lateral incisors. Data were analysed in accordance with the grounded theory approach.

Results: Findings were classified into the main category of being different during treatment and into three associated sub-categories. The first category, that is being different due to missing teeth, refers to when a person experiences being different because of the anterior spacing The second category, that is being different due to fixed appliance, refers to when the appliance itself makes a person different. The two first categories exemplify being different in terms of appearance. The third identified category, that is being different due to treatment appointments, refers to the need to spend time differently because of having appointments at the clinic for treatment.

Conclusion: Patients MMLIs consider their treatment to start at the time of diagnosis. They experience feelings of being different irrespective of whether the type of treatment is orthodontic SC or IR. The experience of being different differs in timing and causes depending on the treatment method.

Introduction The most common treatment approaches for patients missing maxillary lateral incisors are implant replacement (IT) and orthodontic space closure (SC). Treatment techniques change and improve over time, and it is of interest to know if improvements differ between the methods.Aim To compare the aesthetic outcome and other clinical findings in patients with one or two missing maxillary lateral incisors who were treated with a 10-year difference in time, with either orthodontic space closure or implant replacement.Material and methods A total of 88 patients were included in the study. Forty-four patients treated between 2011 and 2018 were included as the latter cohort (LC). The LC was compared to the early cohort (EC; n = 44), treated between 2001 and 2008. A total of 132 teeth was analysed: 62 teeth in the EC (28 teeth in IT cases and 34 teeth in SC cases) and 70 teeth in the LC (34 teeth in IT cases and 36 teeth in SC cases). Long-term clinical and aesthetic outcomes were evaluated.Results An improvement over time was found in crown length, BoP, papilla, the inclination of incisors, and overall appearance in IT cases and in crown colour and overbite in SC cases. A deterioration over time was found in crown length and BoP among the SC cases.Conclusion Among the IT cases, an improvement in outcomes was noted over time. When comparing SC cases the colour of the crown and overbite had improved, while crown length and BoP had deteriorated over time.

Objectives: To assess skeletal and dental effects and evaluate possible side effects of maxillary expansion with two different appliances, directly after expansion and 1 year postexpansion. Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients with unilateral posterior crossbite (mean 9.5 +/- 0.9 years) were randomized to either rapid maxillary expansion (RME) banded on the deciduous second molars and bonded to the primary canines or slow expansion with quad helix (QH) on the permanent first molars. Cone-beam computed tomography records were taken at baseline, directly after correction of the posterior crossbite and at follow-up 1 year after expansion. Results: All patients were analyzed. RME opened the midpalatal suture more anteriorly and inferiorly (mean 4.1 mm) and less posteriorly and superiorly (mean 1.0 mm). No effect on midpalatal suture could be shown in the QH group after expansion, P < .001. Buccal bone width had significantly decreased (P < .001) in the QH group compared with the RME group. Buccal fenestrations and root resorption on the left first molar had a higher prevalence directly after expansion finished in the QH group (P = .0086, P = .013) but were not significant at 1-year follow-up (P = .11, P = .22). Conclusions: Opening of the suture with RME was more anterior and inferior, and the QH did not open the midpalatal suture at all. More buccal bone loss and fenestrations were seen on the permanent first molar in patients treated with conventional QH than RME anchored to deciduous teeth.

Objective

Few studies within orthodontics present both economic and clinical findings. Missing maxillary lateral incisors is a frequently occurring anomaly. The treatment alternatives most used are orthodontic space closure and prosthetic replacement of the missing tooth. Our aim is to compare the total societal costs of orthodontic space closure (SC) and implant therapy (IT) in patients missing maxillary lateral incisors.

Methods

Records of 32 patients treated with SC (n = 18) or IT (n = 14) due to missing maxillary lateral incisors were retrieved from the archives. Direct costs and indirect costs in the short- and long-term were analysed using a cost analysis with a societal perspective up of to 12 years post-treatment.

Results

Comparing cases treated with SC and IT, the difference in direct short-term costs for treatment is euro735.54, whereas SC is the least costly. There is no difference between SC and IT in short-term parent loss of productivity, long-term loss of productivity, costs for transportation, or direct long-term costs. A difference was found between SC and IT-in favour of SC-when comparing patients' loss of productivity (P = 0.007), short-term societal costs (P < 0.001), long-term societal costs (P = 0.037), and total societal costs (P < 0.001).

Limitations

There is a limited number of patient records. Local factors such as subsidies, urban versus rural areas, taxes, etc. can influence monetary variables, so the transferability to other settings may be limited.

Conclusion

Patients treated with SC have a lower total societal cost compared to patients treated with IT. There was a difference in productivity loss for patients between SC and IT; however, concerning other indirect parameters and direct long-term costs, there was no difference between the two treatments.

Background

Quad Helix (QH) is the appliance most preferred by orthodontists to correct unilateral posterior crossbite in the early mixed dentition while other orthodontists suggest rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on deciduous teeth in these patients.

Objectives

To evaluate and compare perceived pain intensity, discomfort, functional jaw impairment, and analgesic consumption during the first week of treatment with either RME or QH appliances.

Trial design

Two-arm parallel group, two-centre, randomized controlled trial.

Material and methods

Seventy-two patients, mean age 9.5 (SD +/- 0.8) years, with unilateral posterior crossbite requiring maxillary expansion were randomly allocated to either the RME (22 boys, 14 girls) or QH (22 boys, 14 girls) group. Validated questionnaires were used to assess pain intensity, discomfort, jaw function impairment, and analgesic consumption, on the first, fourth, and seventh days after appliance insertion and activation.

Blinding

Due to clinical limitations, only the outcome assessors were blinded to the groups to which the patients were allocated.

Results

Seventy patients completed the questionnaires. Pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance were significantly higher in the QH group on the first day of treatment (P = 0.003 and P = 0.000, respectively). On the fourth day, the chafe from the appliance was still significantly higher in the QH group (P = 0.007). Speech was affected in both groups on day 1; this impairment continued and was significantly higher in the RME group days 4 and 7. No significant difference in analgesic consumption was found between the groups at any time. The analgesic consumption was highest at day 1 of treatment.

Harms

No harm was observed in any patient.

Limitations

Double blinding was not possible due to the clinical limitations.

Conclusion

During the initial 4 days of treatment, pain from the tongue and chafe from the appliance caused the most reported inconvenience in the patients in the QH group. A majority of reported visual analogue scale values were in the lower mid-range, suggesting low to moderate pain and discomfort in both groups.

Objective: To investigate laypeople and dental professionals' opinions of the aesthetic outcome from implant therapy (IT) and orthodontic space closure (SC) for missing maxillary lateral incisors.

Material and methods: Evaluation was performed by three groups: laypeople 20–30 years of age (n = 26), laypeople 50–70 years of age (n = 26) and orthodontists (n = 25). The assessors viewed photographs of 44 different cases treated with IT or SC, and made an evaluation of the aesthetics.

Results: The gingival color adjacent to the replaced tooth was rated as having better aesthetics in the SC cases (p = 0.000). The orthodontists preferred the aesthetics of the dentition in the SC cases (p = 0.042). The young laypeople, compared to the older laypeople and orthodontists, were more dissatisfied with the color of the tooth replacing the missing lateral incisor in SC cases (p = 0.043).

Conclusion: The color of the gingiva adjacent to the implant-supported crowns had a lower aesthetic rating than the SC group. Laypeople rated both treatments as equally good. The orthodontists had a slight preference for the aesthetics in the SC cases.