Changes in the midpalatal and pterygopalatine sutures induced by micro-implant-supported skeletal expander, analyzed with a novel 3D method based on CBCT imaging

Daniele Cantarella, Ramon Dominguez-Mompell, Sanjay M Mallya, Christoph Moschik, Hsin Chuan Pan, Joseph Miller, Won Moon, Daniele Cantarella, Ramon Dominguez-Mompell, Sanjay M Mallya, Christoph Moschik, Hsin Chuan Pan, Joseph Miller, Won Moon

Abstract

Background: Mini-implant-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) appliances have been developed with the aim to enhance the orthopedic effect induced by rapid maxillary expansion (RME). Maxillary Skeletal Expander (MSE) is a particular type of MARPE appliance characterized by the presence of four mini-implants positioned in the posterior part of the palate with bi-cortical engagement. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the MSE effects on the midpalatal and pterygopalatine sutures in late adolescents, using high-resolution CBCT. Specific aims are to define the magnitude and sagittal parallelism of midpalatal suture opening, to measure the extent of transverse asymmetry of split, and to illustrate the possibility of splitting the pterygopalatine suture.

Methods: Fifteen subjects (mean age of 17.2 years; range, 13.9-26.2 years) were treated with MSE. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT exams were taken and superimposed. A novel methodology based on three new reference planes was utilized to analyze the sutural changes. Parameters were compared from pre- to post-treatment and between genders non-parametrically using the Wilcoxon sign rank test. For the frequency of openings in the lower part of the pterygopalatine suture, the Fisher's exact test was used.

Results: Regarding the magnitude of midpalatal suture opening, the split at anterior nasal spine (ANS) and at posterior nasal spine (PNS) was 4.8 and 4.3 mm, respectively. The amount of split at PNS was 90% of that at ANS, showing that the opening of the midpalatal suture was almost perfectly parallel antero-posteriorly. On average, one half of the anterior nasal spine (ANS) moved more than the contralateral one by 1.1 mm. Openings between the lateral and medial plates of the pterygoid process were detectable in 53% of the sutures (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the magnitude and frequency of suture opening between males and females. Correlation between age and suture opening was negligible (R 2 range, 0.3-4.2%).

Conclusions: Midpalatal suture was successfully split by MSE in late adolescents, and the opening was almost perfectly parallel in a sagittal direction. Regarding the extent of transverse asymmetry of the split, on average one half of ANS moved more than the contralateral one by 1.1 mm. Pterygopalatine suture was split in its lower region by MSE, as the pyramidal process was pulled out from the pterygoid process. Patient gender and age had a negligible influence on suture opening for the age group considered in the study.

Keywords: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT); Midpalatal suture; Palatal expansion; Pterygopalatine suture.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

The micro-implant-supported skeletal expander used in the present study has been developed and used since 2003. Nowadays, it is widely used at UCLA Orthodontic Clinic where the study was performed.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present retrospective study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), IRB number 16-001662.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Measurement of maxillary (a) and mandibular width (b) with a digital caliper on the stone models. The frontal view of maxillary (blue line) and mandibular width (red line) is shown in (c). In this patient, the maxillary width is 55.0 mm, the mandibular width is 59.6 mm, and the maxillary transverse deficiency is 4.6 mm (59.6 − 55.0). The amount of maxillary skeletal expansion required for the patient is equal to the maxillary transverse deficiency (4.6 mm)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Maxillary Skeletal Expander (MSE). a Appliance positioned in the posterior part of the palate. b Measurement of the distance between the two halves of the expansion jackscrew on the post-expansion CBCT; the opening of the midpalatal suture can also be seen in the figure
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Schematic representation of the three main reference planes: maxillary sagittal plane (MSP), axial palatal plane (APP), and V-coronal plane (VCP). Reference planes are localized in the pre-expansion CBCT and become the reference lines to measure the displacement of skeletal structures in the post-expansion CBCT
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Sections used to localize the MSP and APP. a Axial section. b Sagittal section. c Coronal section
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Axial palatal section (APS), lower nasal section (LNS), and upper nasal section (UNS) utilized to analyze the lateral and sagittal displacement of the maxilla and pterygoid plates and the modifications along the entire length of the pterygopalatine suture. a Superimposition of pre-expansion and post-expansion 3D model on anterior cranial base. b APS, superimposed image. c LNS, superimposed image. d UNS, superimposed image. e Anterior cranial base, superimposed image. It can be noticed how bones of the maxillo-facial complex are displaced in the APS, LNS, and UNS, while no displacement takes place on anterior cranial base. For this particular patient, skeletal changes are larger on the right side of the skull rather than on the left side, in all three axial sections (APS, LNS, UNS). Facial soft tissue modifications can also be detected on the APS, LNS, and UNS. Blue lines, MSP and VCP
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Landmarks identified in the axial palatal section in the post-expansion CBCT. 1 Right anterior nasal spine (Rt ANS), 2 left anterior nasal spine (Lt ANS), 3 right posterior nasal spine (Rt PNS), 4 left posterior nasal spine (Lt PNS), 5 most medial point of the lateral plate of the right pterygoid process (Rt Lat Pter), 6 most lateral point of the medial plate of the right pterygoid process (Rt Med Pter), 7 most lateral point of the medial plate of the left pterygoid process (Lt Med Pter), 8 most medial point of the lateral plate of the left pterygoid process (Lt Lat Pter)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Measurements on axial palatal section on post-expansion CBCT. Blue line, maxillary sagittal plane. a Patient with a complete disengagement of the pyramidal process from the pterygoid plates. b Patient with a partial disengagement of the pyramidal process from the pterygoid plates in the left pterygopalatine suture; the opening is present between the pyramidal process and the medial pterygoid plate
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Relation between the APS with palatine bone and pterygoid plates. a Posterior view of the left palatine bone. b Anterior view of the left pterygoid process of the sphenoid bone
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Reference lines used in conventional 2D postero-anterior cephalometric analysis: a pre-expansion and b post-expansion; ANS is located on the left side of the vertical reference line. Maxillary sagittal plane (MSP) as novel reference plane: c pre-expansion and d post-expansion; ANS is located in the MSP
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Sagittal parallelism of midpalatal suture opening obtained with MSE. a Borders of the midpalatal suture (yellow lines) moving almost perfectly parallel to each other; amount of split at PNS (4.3 mm) was 90% of that at ANS (4.8 mm). b Position of MSE in the posterior part of the palate, providing an expansion force (red arrows) in line with the zygomatic buttress bones, which represent a major resistance to the movement of maxillary halves
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Schematic representation of transverse asymmetry of split of the midpalatal suture. a Example where the lateral movement of right maxilla (x) is larger than that of left maxilla (y). b Example where the lateral movement of left maxilla (y) is larger than that of right maxilla (x). Blue line, MSP

References

    1. Gurel HG, Memili B, Erkan M, Sukurica Y. Long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion followed by fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:5–9. doi: 10.2319/011209-22.1.
    1. Lagravère MO, Carey J, Heo G, Toogood RW, Major PW. Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137:304–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.004.
    1. Carlson C, Sung J, McComb RW, Machado AW, Moon W. Microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion appliance to orthopedically correct transverse maxillary deficiency in an adult. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;149:716–728. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.043.
    1. MacGinnis M, Chu H, Youssef G, Wu KW, Machado AW, Moon W. The effects of micro-implant assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE) on the nasomaxillary complex––a finite element method (FEM) analysis. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:52. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0052-y.
    1. Lee RJ, Moon W, Hong C. Effects of monocortical and bicortical mini-implant anchorage on bone-borne palatal expansion using finite element analysis. Am J Orhod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:887–897. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.025.
    1. McNamara JA, Jr, Brudon WL. Orthodontic and Orthopedic Treatment in the Mixed Dentition. Ann Arbor: Needham Press; 1993.
    1. Epker BN, Wolford C. Dentofacial Deformity, Surgical-Orthodontic Correction. St Louis: Mosby; 1980.
    1. Pogrel MA, Kaban LB, Vargervik K, Baumrind S. Surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion in adults. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1992;7:37–41.
    1. Lin L, Ahn HW, Kim SJ, Moon SC, Kim SH, Nelson G. Tooth-borne vs bone-borne rapid maxillary expanders in late adolescence. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:253–262. doi: 10.2319/030514-156.1.
    1. Melsen B, Melsen F. The postnatal development of the palatomaxillary region studied on human autopsy material. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:329–342. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90467-5.
    1. Ghoneima A, Abdel-Fattah E, Hartsfield J, El-Bedwehi A, Kamel A, Kula K. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion on the cranial and circummaxillary sutures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:510–519. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.10.024.
    1. Haas AJ. The treatment of maxillary deficiency by opening of the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod. 1965;35:200–217.
    1. Haas AJ. Long-term posttreatment evaluation of rapid palatal expansion. Angle Orthod. 1980;50:189–217.
    1. Wertz R, Dreskin M. Midpalatal suture opening: a normative study. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:367–381. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90241-X.
    1. Leonardi R, Sicurezza E, Cutrera A, Barbato E. Early post-treatment changes of circumaxillary sutures in young patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:36–41. doi: 10.2319/050910-250.1.
    1. Garib DG, Henriques JF, Janson G, Freitas MR, Coelho RA. Rapid maxillary expansion––tooth tissue-borne versus tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal effects. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:548–557.
    1. Ballanti F, Lione R, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Treatment and posttreatment skeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated with low-dose computed tomography in growing subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138:311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.10.022.
    1. Lione R, Ballanti F, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P. Treatment and posttreatment skeletal effects of rapid maxillary expansion studied with low-dose computed tomography in growing subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134:389–392. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.05.011.
    1. Cevidanes LHS, Bailey LTJ, Tucker GR, Jr, Styner MA, Mol A, Phillips CL, Proffit WR, Turvey T. Superimposition of 3D cone-beam CT models of orthognathic surgery patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2005;34:369–375. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/17102411.
    1. Cevidanes LH, Heymann G, Cornelis MA, DeClerck HJ, Tulloch JF. Superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models of growing patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136:94–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.018.
    1. Andrews LF, Andrews WA. The six elements of orofacial harmony. Andrews J. 2000;1:13–22.
    1. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA., Jr The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:119–129. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.005.
    1. Weissheimer A, Menezes LM, Koerich L, Pham J, Cevidanes LHS. Fast three-dimensional superimposition of cone beam computed tomography for orthopaedics and orthognathic surgery evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44(9):1188–1196. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.04.001.
    1. Woller JL, Kim KB, Behrents RG, Buschang PH. An assessment of the maxilla after rapid maxillary expansion using cone beam computed tomography in growing children. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(1):26–35. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.026-035.oar.
    1. Baka ZM, Akin M, Ucar FI, Ileri Z. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal changes after asymmetric rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;147:61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.09.014.
    1. Wertz RA. Skeletal and dental changes accompanying rapid midpalatal suture opening. Am J Orthod. 1970;58:41–66. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(70)90127-2.
    1. Braun S, Bottrel JA, Lee KG, Lunazzi JJ, Legan H. The biomechanics of rapid maxillary sutural expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:257–261. doi: 10.1067/mod.2000.108254.
    1. Weissheimer A, de Menezes LM, Mezomo M, Dias DM, de Lima EMS, Rizzatto SMD. Immediate effects of rapid maxillary expansion with Haas-type and hyrax-type expanders: a randomized clinical trial. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.025.
    1. Torun GS. Soft tissue changes in the orofacial region after rapid maxillary expansion: a cone beam computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00056-015-0001-5.
    1. Lee SP, Paik KS, Kim MK. Anatomical study of the pyramidal process of the palatine bone in relation to implant placement in the posterior maxilla. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:125–132. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00741.x.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren