Comparison of Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocols with Face Mask Therapy

Turk J Orthod. 2023 Dec 29;36(4):231-238. doi: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2022.141.

Abstract

Objective: This study compared dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with face mask (FM) therapy. Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) protocols were used with the two different types of expansion appliance, and their effects on the treatment outcome were investigated.

Methods: The study consisted of 79 (37 and 42 patients in the RME and Alt-RAMEC groups with FM, respectively) patients who had received FM treatment. The effects of the RME/FM (20 female, 17 male) and Alt-RAMEC/FM (14 female, 28 male) protocols were evaluated using lateral cephalometric films. The chronological ages of the RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups were 11.58 and 11.99 years, respectively. In addition, both groups were divided into two subgroups based on the design of the expansion appliance (Spolyar or full coverage type). Differences in all parameters were analyzed using Student's t-tests.

Results: The maxilla significantly moved forward in both the RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM groups (p<0.001). No significant skeletal differences were observed between the groups. Sagittal movement of the upper incisors significantly increased, and the lower incisors significantly retruded in both groups. While similar skeletal changes were found between the Spolyar and full-coverage appliance groups, the upper incisors protruded significantly more in the full-coverage type.

Conclusion: RME/FM and Alt-RAMEC/FM therapies were found to be efficient for maxillary protraction and resulted in similar skeletal changes. A full-coverage expansion appliance produced a more upper incisor protrusion than a spherical-type appliance.

Keywords: Alt-RAMEC; Face mask therapy; Full coverage appliance; RME; Spolyar-type appliance.