+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial



Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial



American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 148(4): 641-651



The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effects of facemask protraction combined with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction (RPE/C) vs rapid palatal expansion (RPE) alone in the early treatment of maxillary retrusive patients. Patients with a midface deficiency were recruited and randomly allocated into either the control group (RPE) or the intervention group (RPE/C). Eligibility criteria included the following: age 7 to 13 years old, Class III malocclusion, anterior crossbite, ANB less than 0°, Wits appraisal less than -2 mm, A-Np less than 0 mm, and no cleft of lip or palate. The primary outcome was the degree of maxillary forward movement after treatment. The secondary outcomes were the changes of the other cephalometric variables after treatment and the treatment time. Simple randomization was carried out using a random number table at the beginning of the study. Envelopes containing the grouping information were used to ensure allocation concealment from the researchers. Blinding was applicable for cephalometric analysis only. Hyrax palatal expanders and facemask maxillary protraction were used in all patients. Patients in the RPE group were treated with rapid palatal expansion for 1 week. Patients in the RPE/C group were treated with RPE/C for 7 weeks. The expansion or constriction rate was 1 mm per day. Cephalometric analysis with traditional cephalometric measurements and an x-y coordinate system were used to compare the pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs. Independent t tests were used to compare the data between the 2 groups. A total of 44 patients were randomized to either the RPE group or the RPE/C group in a 1:1 ratio. One subject in the RPE group was lost to follow-up during the treatment. Per-protocol analysis was used. All the other 43 patients reached the treatment completion criteria and were analyzed (RPE group: n = 21; RPE/C group: n = 22). The average protraction time was 10.84 months in the RPE group, which was significantly longer than that in the RPE/C group (9.06 months) (effect size [ES], 1.78 [95% CI, 0.15, 3.42; P = 0.033]). Maxillary forward movement increased by 3.04 mm in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the RPE group (2.11 mm) (ES, -0.93 [95% CI, -1.65, -0.20; P = 0.013]). The counterclockwise rotation of the palatal plane was 1.73° in the RPE/C group, which was significantly greater than that in the RPE group (0.83°) (ES, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.08, 1.73; P = 0.033]). The degree of mandibular downward and backward rotation was significantly smaller in the RPE/C group (P <0.05). No serious harm was observed during treatment and research. Facemask maxillary protraction with RPE/C might positively affect the forward movement of the maxilla compared with facemask protraction with RPE alone in the early treatment of maxillary retrusive patients. Although the differences between the groups were statistically significant for forward movement of the maxilla and rotation of the palatal and mandibular planes, these may not be clinically relevant, since the differences were less than 1 mm and 1°, respectively. This trial was not registered. The protocol was not published before trial commencement. This research was supported by Peking University Research Fund. No conflict of interest is declared.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057706475

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26432320

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.038


Related references

Evaluation of maxillary three-dimensional changes in maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction based on the cone-beam computed tomography. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 50(4): 685-692, 2018

The effectiveness of alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction combined with maxillary protraction in the treatment of patients with a class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthodontics 45(4): 250-259, 2018

A Retrospective Evaluation of Conventional Rapid Maxillary Expansion versus Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansion and Constriction Protocol Combined with Protraction Headgear in the Management of Developing Skeletal Class III Malocclusion. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 8(4): 320-326, 2018

The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 128(3): 299-309, 2005

Interceptive treatment of palatal impaction of maxillary canines with rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 136(5): 657-661, 2009

Validity of palatal superimposition of 3-dimensional digital models in cases treated with rapid maxillary expansion and maxillary protraction headgear. Korean Journal of Orthodontics 42(5): 235-241, 2012

Hard tissue changes in class III patients treated with maxillary protraction and rapid palatal expansion. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36(4): 273-276, 2001

Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 137(3): 304-305, 2010

Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 137(3): 304.E1-12; Discussion 304-5, 2010

Effect of maxillary protraction with or without rapid palatal expansion in treating early skeletal Class III malocclusion. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 27(2): 178-182, 2015

Evaluation of enamel demineralization in adolescents after rapid maxillary expansion using the quantitative light-induced fluorescence method: A single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 150(5): 731-739, 2017

The effect of two different methods of rapid maxillary expansion on treatment results of skeletal Class III malocclusion patients with maxillary protraction in early permanent dentition. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 21(5): 580-583, 2015

Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 144(5): 705-714, 2014

Comparison of the palatal expansion obtained via the use of the rapid maxillary expander compared with surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion. Minerva Stomatologica 65(2): 72-80, 2017

Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy. Korean Journal of Orthodontics 49(1): 49-58, 2019