J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boysen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gjessing, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boysen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gjessing, P. E.

British Journal of Orthodontics, Vol 19, 97-107, Copyright © 1992 by British Orthodontic Society

ARTICLES

Three-dimensional evaluation of dentoskeletal changes after posterior cross-bite correction by quad-helix or removable appliances

B Boysen, K La Cour, AE Athanasiou and PE Gjessing
Department of Orthodontics, Royal Dental College, Aarhus C, Denmark.

The aim of the study was to evaluate in a three-dimensional manner the dentoskeletal changes after slow maxillary expansion. The sample consisted of 34 children with a unilateral, symmetrical posterior cross- bite. Half of the children were treated with a quad-helix and the rest with a removable appliance. Assessment of the changes was made with study casts, and frontal and lateral cephalograms, before treatment, at the end of the expansion, after a retention period of 3 months, and after a post-retention period of 3 months. The results showed that sufficient expansion of the dental arches took place in both groups. The expansion expressed in the molar region in the quad-helix group was mostly due to buccal translation of the teeth and in the removable appliance group due to buccal tipping. The quad-helix group showed somewhat greater basal expansion than the removable appliance group, though the basal expansion in both groups was rather small. A tendency towards an increase of the NL/ML angle characterized the removable appliance group, but the opposite pattern was present in the quad-helix group.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Defraia, A. Marinelli, G. Baroni, and I. Tollaro
Dentoskeletal effects of a removable appliance for expansion of the maxillary arch: a postero-anterior cephalometric study
Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2008; 30(1): 57 - 60.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Orthod.Home page
M. R. McNally, D. J. Spary, and W. P. Rock
A randomized controlled trial comparing the quadhelix and the expansion arch for the correction of crossbite
J. Orthod., March 1, 2005; 32(1): 29 - 35.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
M. O. LAGRAVERE, P. W. MAJOR, and C. FLORES-MIR
Skeletal and dental changes with fixed slow maxillary expansion treatment: A systematic review
J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2005; 136(2): 194 - 199.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 British Orthodontic Society.