SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Selcuk Dental Journal / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 1

Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Conventional and Hybrid Maxillary Expansion on Nasal Tissue

Konvansiyonel ve Hibrit Maksiller Genişletmenin Burun Dokusu Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Karşılaştırmalı Değerlendirilmesi

Tuğçe Esra Güneş(ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0004-1994-3903
Mehmet Akın(ALANYA ALAADDİN KEYKUBAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0776-7653
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-04-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that both methods provide similar effects on nasal structures and lead to significant changes compared to the untreated group.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract Background: This study aims to assess the alterations in nasal soft and hard tissues resulting from conventional and hybrid maxillary expansion methods by analyzing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) records and comparing them with a control group.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this retrospective study, CBCT records of 22 patients (mean age: 14.02±0.98) treated with a hybrid expansion appliance and 23 patients (mean age: 14.51±1.47) treated with a conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance were analyzed in comparison with a control group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that both methods provide similar effects on nasal structures and lead to significant changes compared to the untreated group.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Conventional maxillary expansion · Hybrid maxillary expansion · Nasal cavity.

Abstract

Abstract Background: This study aims to assess the alterations in nasal soft and hard tissues resulting from conventional and hybrid maxillary expansion methods by analyzing Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) records and comparing them with a control group. Methods: In this retrospective study, CBCT records of 22 patients (mean age: 14.02±0.98) treated with a hybrid expansion appliance and 23 patients (mean age: 14.51±1.47) treated with a conventional rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance were analyzed in comparison with a control group. Patients were evaluated in two periods: before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). CBCT scans were used to measure dimensional changes in the nasal soft and hard tissues (12 linear and 1 angular measurements). Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the hybrid and conventional maxillary expansion groups regarding alar base width, posterior nasal cavity, anterior nasal cavity, maxillary intermolar, and intercanine widths when comparing pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) measurements. However, in both treatment groups, a significant difference was observed compared to the control group. Conclusion: While no difference was found in the amount of change between pre-treatment and post-treatment measurements in the hybrid and conventional treatment groups, both treatment groups showed significant improvements in alar base width, nasal cavity, and maxillary widths compared to the control group. These findings indicate that both methods provide similar effects on nasal structures and lead to significant changes compared to the untreated group. Keywords: Conventional maxillary expansion, Hybrid maxillary expansion, Nasal cavity.

Özet

Öz Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, konvansiyonel ve hibrit maksiller genişletme yöntemlerinin burun yumuşak ve sert dokularında meydana getirdiği değişiklikleri, Konik Işınlı Bilgisayarlı Tomografi (KIBT) kayıtları kullanarak kontrol grubuyla karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada, klinik arşivimizden seçilen, hibrit genişletme apareyi ile tedavi edilen 22 hastanın (ortalama yaş 14.02±0.98) ve konvansiyonel genişletme apareyi (RME) ile tedavi edilen 23 hastanın (ortalama yaş 14.51±1.47) KIBT kayıtları kontrol grubuyla karşılaştırılmalı olarak incelendi. Hastalar, tedavi öncesi (T1) ve tedavi sonrası (T2) dönemlerde değerlendirildi. KIBT taramalarında burun yumuşak ve sert dokularındaki boyut değişiklikleri (12 lineer, 1 açısal) ölçüldü. Bulgular: Alar taban genişliği, posterior nazal kavite, anterior nazal kavite, maksiller intermolar ve interkanin mesafelerde tedavi öncesi (T1) ve tedavi sonrası (T2) ölçümlerde hibrit ve konvansiyonel maksiller genişletme grupları arasında bir fark gözlenmemiştir ancak kontrol grubuna kıyasla iki grupta da anlamlı fark gözlenmiştir. Sonuç: Her iki tedavi grubunda (hibrit ve konvansiyonel) tedavi öncesi ve sonrası ölçümler arasındaki değişim miktarında fark bulunmazken, kontrol grubuna göre her iki tedavi grubunda alar taban genişliği, nazal kavite ve maksiller mesafelerde anlamlı iyileşmeler gözlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, her iki yöntemin burun yapılarında benzer etkiler sağladığını ve tedavi yapılmayan gruba göre belirgin değişiklikler oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Burun boşluğu, Hibrit maksiller genişletme, Konvansiyonel maksiller genişletme.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güneş, T. E., Akın, M. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Conventional and Hybrid Maxillary Expansion on Nasal Tissue. Selcuk Dental Journal, Volume: 13 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1655326

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. McNamaraa JA. Maxillary transverse deficiency. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2000;117:567–570.
  2. Ferrario VF. Quantitative effects of a nickel-titanium palatal expander on skeletal and dental structures in the primary and mixed dentition: a preliminary study. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2003;25:401–410.
  3. Thilander B, Wahlund S, Lennartsson B. The effect of early interceptive treatment in children with posterior cross-bite. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1984;6:25–34.
  4. Sandikçiolu M, Hazar S. Skeletal and dental changes after maxillary expansion in the mixed dentition. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1997;111:321–327.
  5. Başçiftçi Fa, Demir A, Sarı Z, Uysal T. Konya Yöresi Okul Çocuklarında Ortodontik Maloklüzyonların Prevelansının Araştırılması: Epidemiyolojik Çalışma. Turk J Orthod. 2002;15:92–98.
  6. Angell EH. Treatment of irregularities of the permanent or adult tooth. Dent Cosmos. 1860;540–544.
  7. Pala Mutlu B. Ortodontide hızlı maksiller genişletme. İçinde: Ayhan Z. TM, GE, editor. Farklı cerrahi alanlarda güncel yaklaşımlar. 1. Baskı. Adıyaman: İKSAD Publishing House; 2021;151–181.
  8. Haas AJ. Rapid expansion of the maxillary dental arch and nasal cavity by opening the midpalatal suture. Angle Orthod. 1961;73–90.
  9. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cameron CG, McNamara JA. Treatment timing for rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2001;71:343–350.
  10. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: Just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod. 1970;57:219–255.
  11. Hartono N, Soegiharto BM, Widayati R. The difference of stress distribution of maxillary expansion using rapid maxillary expander (RME) and maxillary skeletal expander (MSE)—a finite element analysis. Prog Orthod. 2018;19:33.
  12. Pala Mutlu B. Ortodontide vertikal büyüme yönünün kontrolü ve tedavi başarısına etkisi. İçinde: Uzel İ. DMC, editor. Güncel ortodonti ve pedodonti çalışmaları. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Akademisyen Yayınevi Kitabevi; 2021;229–241.
  13. Mommaerts MY. Transpalatal distraction as a method of maxillary expansion. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 1999;37:268–272.
  14. Koudstaal MJ, van der Wal KGH, Wolvius EB, Schulten AJM. The Rotterdam Palatal Distractor: introduction of the new bone-borne device and report of the pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35:31–35.
  15. Wehrbein H, Glatzmaier J, Mundwiller U, Diedrich P. Das Orthosystem — Ein neues Implantatsystem zur orthodontischen Verankerung am Gaumen. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 1996;57:142–153.
  16. Wilmes B, Nienkemper M, Drescher D. Application and effectiveness of a mini-implant- and tooth-borne rapid palatal expansion device: the hybrid hyrax. World J Orthod. 2010;11:323–330.
  17. Brunetto DP, Sant’Anna EF, Machado AW, Moon W. Non-surgical treatment of transverse deficiency in adults using Microimplant-assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE). Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22:110–125.
  18. Gunyuz Toklu M, Germec-Cakan D, Tozlu M. Periodontal, dentoalveolar, and skeletal effects of tooth-borne and tooth-bone-borne expansion appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015;148:97–109.
  19. 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.
  20. Johnson BM, McNamara JA, Bandeen RL, Baccetti T. Changes in soft tissue nasal widths associated with rapid maxillary expansion in prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:995–1001.
  21. Silva Filho OG da, Lara TS, Ayub PV, Ohashi ASC, Bertoz FA. Photographic assessment of nasal morphology following rapid maxillary expansion in children. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2011;19:535–543.
  22. Mehta S, Gandhi V, Vich ML, Allareddy V, Tadinada A, Yadav S. Long-term assessment of conventional and mini-screw–assisted rapid palatal expansion on the nasal cavity. Angle Orthod. 2022;92:315–323.
  23. Kim KB, Adams D, Araújo EA, Behrents RG. Evaluation of immediate soft tissue changes after rapid maxillary expansion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17:157–164.
  24. Akin M, Akgul YE, Ileri Z, Basciftci FA. Three-dimensional evaluation of hybrid expander appliances: A pilot study. Angle Orthod. 2016;86:81–86.
  25. Matenine D, Schmittbuhl M, Bedwani S, Després P, de Guise JA. Iterative reconstruction for image enhancement and dose reduction in diagnostic cone beam CT imaging. J Xray Sci Technol. 2019;27:805–819.
  26. Zhu Y, Liu Y, Zhang Q, Zhang C, Gao X. A fast iteration approach to undersampled cone-beam CT reconstruction. Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology: Clinical Applications of Diagnosis and Therapeutics. 2019;27:111–129.
  27. Oh H, Park J, Lagravere-Vich MO. Comparison of traditional RPE with two types of micro-implant assisted RPE: CBCT study. Semin Orthod. 2019;25:60–68.
  28. Yi F, Liu S, Lei L, Liu O, Zhang L, Peng Q, et al. Changes of the upper airway and bone in microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion: A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. J Xray Sci Technol. 2020;28:271–283.
  29. Bishara SE, Staley RN. Maxillary expansion: Clinical implications. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1987;91:3–14.
  30. Haas AJ. Palatal expansion: Just the beginning of dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod. 1970;57:219–255.
  31. Baysal A, Uysal T, Veli I, Ozer T, Karadede I, Hekimoglu S. Evaluation of alveolar bone loss following rapid maxillary expansion using cone-beam computed tomography. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2013;43:83.
  32. Garib DG, Henriques JFC, Janson G, de Freitas MR, Fernandes AY. Periodontal effects of rapid maxillary expansion with tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders: A computed tomography evaluation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006 Jun;129:749–758.
  33. Brunetto DP, Sant’Anna EF, Machado AW, Moon W. Non-surgical treatment of transverse deficiency in adults using Microimplant-assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE). Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22:110–125.
  34. Wilmes B, Nienkemper M, Drescher D. Application and effectiveness of a mini-implant- and tooth-borne rapid palatal expansion device: the hybrid hyrax. World J Orthod. 2010;11:323–330.
  35. Bishara SE, Staley RN. Maxillary expansion: Clinical implications. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1987;91:3–14.
  36. Velázquez P, Benito E, Bravo LA. Rapid maxillary expansion. A study of the long-term effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1996;109:361–367.
  37. Pavlin D, Vukicevic D. Mechanical reactions of facial skeleton to maxillary expansion determined by laser holography. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:498–507.
  38. Johnson BM, McNamara JA, Bandeen RL, Baccetti T. Changes in soft tissue nasal widths associated with rapid maxillary expansion in prepubertal and postpubertal subjects. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:995–1001.
  39. Mehta S, Arqub SA, Vich ML, Kuo CL, Tadinada A, Upadhyay M, et al. Long-term effects of conventional and miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion on root resorption. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2022;161:e235–249.
  40. Yi F, Liu S, Lei L, Liu O, Zhang L, Peng Q, et al. Changes of the upper airway and bone in microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expansion: A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. J Xray Sci Technol. 2020;28:271–283.
  41. Özel HE, Pala Mutlu B, Özel MB. Cephalometric analysis in adults with tympanic membrane atelectasis. Cranio®. 2025;43:361–367.
  42. Kim KB, Adams D, Araújo EA, Behrents RG. Evaluation of immediate soft tissue changes after rapid maxillary expansion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17:157–164.
  43. Truong CT, Jeon HH, Sripinun P, Tierney A, Boucher NS. Short-term and long-term effects of rapid maxillary expansion on the nasal soft and hard tissue: Angle Orthod. 2021;91:46–53.