Ortu Eleonora, Di Nicolantonio Sara, Cova Samuele, Pietropaoli Davide, De Simone Lucia, Monaco Annalisa
MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L'Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.
Independent Researcher, Cles, 38023 Trento, Italy.
Reports (MDPI). 2024 May 21;7(2):41. doi: 10.3390/reports7020041.
This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of using two different devices to treat upper palatal discrepancies evaluated with a digital intraoral scanner.
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.
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.
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.
本研究旨在比较使用两种不同装置治疗上腭差异的临床效果，采用数字口内扫描仪进行评估。
共纳入64例患者，分别使用弹性正畸扩展装置（32例患者为试验组，16例女性和16例男性，平均年龄7.08±0.44岁）或哈斯扩弓器（32例患者为对照组，16例女性和16例男性，平均年龄7.32±0.50岁）进行治疗。两组具有相似的正畸特征。正畸标准为：骨骼I类关系；磨牙I类关系；上颌第六颗牙完全萌出；存在单侧或双侧反咬合。所有石膏模型在治疗前（T0）和治疗开始后12个月（T1）进行检查，随后用口内扫描仪（I-Tero）扫描，以评估上颌乳尖牙之间的距离（ICW，犬间宽度）和上颌第一磨牙近中腭尖之间的距离（IMW，磨牙间宽度）。统计分析分别采用连续变量的t检验和分类变量的卡方检验。
哈斯扩弓器和弹性正畸装置产生的扩展均值和标准差之间无统计学显著差异（哈斯扩弓器与Eptamed：ICW_T1（哈斯）=42.34（3.09），ICW_T1（Eptamed）=42.69（2.77）；P=0.743；IMW_T1（哈斯）=34.22（2.29），IMW_T1（Eptamed）=34.00（2.56）；P=0.800）。两种装置效果相似。
弹性正畸装置和哈斯扩弓器均可成功帮助正畸医生进行上颌扩弓治疗。然而，与腭部扩弓装置相比，弹性正畸装置在解决腭部差异过程中更舒适。
