The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the efficiency of two biologically oriented devices in achieving maxillary expansion: Rapid Palatal Expander (RPE) and Nitanium Palatal Expander-2 (NPE-2). Thirty-six subjects, divided in two equal groups, were included in this study. Maxillary dental arches were scanned using Trios 3 shape®, in order to perform a digital analysis of 3D models. The models were analyzed using Autodesk Fusion 360® and Meshmixer®. All data obtained from analysis of pre-treatment and post-treatment models were processed using Prism® software. The anterior arch width, the posterior arch width, the palate height, and palatal surface were measured to evaluate differences between the devices. A D’Agostino–Pearson normality test was done to check the data. A non-parametric t-test was used to compare the anterior and posterior arch width between the two groups, while a parametric t-test was used to compare the palatal height measurements between the two groups. The p-value was calculated. The limit value fixed was 0.05. Palatal width and surface showed a significant increase in both groups, but no significant changes in palatal height were found. The data processed showed that there were no significant differences between the devices (∆REP−∆NPE) in variation of anterior arch width, there were no significant differences in variation of posterior arch width and there were no significant differences in variation of palatal height. The comparison between the two groups showed that both methods were equally effective in correcting transverse defect.

Maxillary Transverse Deficit: A Retrospective Study of Two Biologically Oriented Devices through a Digital Workflow

Tepedino M.;
2022

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the efficiency of two biologically oriented devices in achieving maxillary expansion: Rapid Palatal Expander (RPE) and Nitanium Palatal Expander-2 (NPE-2). Thirty-six subjects, divided in two equal groups, were included in this study. Maxillary dental arches were scanned using Trios 3 shape®, in order to perform a digital analysis of 3D models. The models were analyzed using Autodesk Fusion 360® and Meshmixer®. All data obtained from analysis of pre-treatment and post-treatment models were processed using Prism® software. The anterior arch width, the posterior arch width, the palate height, and palatal surface were measured to evaluate differences between the devices. A D’Agostino–Pearson normality test was done to check the data. A non-parametric t-test was used to compare the anterior and posterior arch width between the two groups, while a parametric t-test was used to compare the palatal height measurements between the two groups. The p-value was calculated. The limit value fixed was 0.05. Palatal width and surface showed a significant increase in both groups, but no significant changes in palatal height were found. The data processed showed that there were no significant differences between the devices (∆REP−∆NPE) in variation of anterior arch width, there were no significant differences in variation of posterior arch width and there were no significant differences in variation of palatal height. The comparison between the two groups showed that both methods were equally effective in correcting transverse defect.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2022 Bioengineering montaruli.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 745 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
745 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11697/180193
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact