Comparison of the Haas Expander and the Elastodontic Device for the Resolution of Transverse Discrepancies in Growing Patients: A Single-Centre Observational Study.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of using two different devices to treat upper palatal discrepancies evaluated with a digital intraoral scanner.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients were enrolled and treated with either an elastodontic expansion device (32 patient test group, 16 females and 16 males, mean age 7.08 ± 0.44) or Haas expander (32 patient control group, 16 females and 16 males, mean age 7.32 ± 0.50). The two groups exhibited similar orthodontic features. The orthodontic criteria were: skeletal class I relationship; molar class I relationship; complete eruption of upper sixths; presence of unilateral or bilateral cross bite. All dental casts were examined and subsequently scanned with an intraoral scanner (I-Tero) pre-treatment (T0) and 12 months after the onset of therapy (T1) to assess the distance between the decidous upper canines (ICW, intercanine width) and the distance between the mesiopalatal cusps of the upper first molars (IMW, intermolar width). For statistical analysis, the -test for continous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables were used, respectively.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the mean and SD of the expansions that resulted from the Haas expander and the elastodontic devices (Haas expander vs. Eptamed: ICW_T1 (Haas) = 42.34 (3.09), ICW_T1 (Eptamed) = 42.69 (2.77); = 0.743; IMW_T1 (Haas) = 34.22 (2.29), IMW_T1 (Eptamed) = 34.00 (2.56); = 0.800). The two devices were similarly effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Elastodontic devices and the Haas expander can successfully help the orthodontist to conduct upper arch expansion treatment. However, elastodontic devices are more comfortable during the resolution of palatal discrepancies compared to palatal expander devices.