Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a
Adjunct professor, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Goi^ania, Goias, Brazil.
b
Postgraduate student (PhD), School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias,
Goi^ania, Goias, Brazil.
c
Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Southwest Bahia
State University, Jequie, Bahia, Brazil.
d
Professor, Department of Stomatologic Sciences, School of Dentistry, Federal
University of Goias, Goi^ania, Goias, Brazil.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of
Potential Conicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Address correspondence to: Jose Valladares-Neto, Division of Orthodontics,
Federal University of Goias, Avenida Universitaria esquina com 1a Avenida, s/n,
Setor Universitario, CEP: 74.605-220, Goi^ania, Goias, Brazil; e-mail,
jvalladares@uol.com.br.
Submitted, May 2015; revised and accepted, October 2015.
0889-5406/$36.00
2016 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.030
Valladares-Neto et al
522
Valladares-Neto et al
523
Valladares-Neto et al
524
Norm
Pretreatment
19 y 11 mo (T1)
Posttreatment
22 y 11 mo (T2)
Postretention
44 y 9 mo (T4)
2.0
82.0
80.0
32.0
25.0
2.0
80.0
78.0
34.0
25.0
2.0
82.5
79.5
31.5
26.0
2.5
80.0
77.5
33.5
25.0
22
4
25
4
90
2-3
2-3
31.0
8.0
21.5
5.0
90.5
6.0
5.0
24.5
6.5
35.5
8.0
110.5
2.0
2.0
24.0
6
33.0
6
102.5
3.0
3.0
0
0
4.0
1.0
3.0
0.5
3.0
1.0
Fig 4. Progress photographs: slow maxillary expansion and mandibular dentoalveolar expansion
treatments.
The aims of the treatment were to expand the maxillary and mandibular arches, resolve the mandibular
crowding, correct the dental crossbite, and obtain
normal overjet, overbite, and incisor inclinations.
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
TREATMENT PROGRESS
Valladares-Neto et al
525
The patient used a wraparound retainer in the maxillary jaw throughout the day over the rst 6 months and
only at night during sleep for the next 6 months. The
mandibular xed retainer from canine to canine has
been maintained up to the present.
TREATMENT RESULTS
Valladares-Neto et al
526
Valladares-Neto et al
527
Valladares-Neto et al
528
Valladares-Neto et al
529
Fig 12. Radiographs 22 years after treatment: A, panoramic; B, lateral cephalometric; C, cephalometric tracing.
signicant root resorption was observed, and root parallelism was well established (Figs 5-7). The 6-year and
22-year follow-up evaluations showed stable alignment
and occlusion, with normal radiograph images
(Figs 8-12).
Serial dental casts made on 4 occasions were available: pretreatment (T1), after expansion and xed appliance therapy (T2), and at the long-term observations
after 6 (T3) and 22 years (T4) posttreatment. Increases
in intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths
were noted due to treatment in both arches. In the
maxillary jaw, the intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths increased by 2.47, 4.09, and 3.75 mm,
respectively, after treatment. The mandibular arch
increased by 3.35, 3.05, and 3.65 mm, respectively, for
the same groups of teeth. During the evaluation at
6 years after treatment, a slight decrease in the transverse dimension was observed, and this tendency was
gradually maintained until the evaluation at 22 years after treatment, without returning to the initial width. The
maxillary width decreased by 0.42, 1.30, and 0.37 mm
after 6 years, respectively, for the intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths; and by 0.97, 1.7, and
1.03 mm from 6 to 22 years after treatment, respectively.
The mandibular widths decreased by 0.0, 0.25, and
0.5 mm after 6 years, and by 0.0, 0.43, and 1.49 mm
after 22 years, respectively.
The cephalometric superimpositions showed no
change in the vertical dimension, and overjet was corrected because of maxillary retrusion concomitant to
mandibular protrusion (Fig 13). Overbite was basically
corrected by mandibular incisor protrusion. The longterm outcome showed a slight movement of these teeth
in the direction of the pretreatment position (Table). Our
case report showed increases in the transverse dimensions that remained clinically stable for 22 years after
Valladares-Neto et al
530
Fig 13. Cephalometric superimpositions: A, effect of treatment (pretreatment, black lines; nal treatment, red lines); B, effect of long-term outcomes (nal treatment, red lines; 22 years posttreatment,
green lines). Total (on the sella-nasion plane at sella), maxillary (on the palatal anterior curve), and
mandibular (on the mandibular plane at internal cortical symphysis) superimpositions.
Fig 14. Maxillary and mandibular arch widths at the canines (A), rst premolars (B), and rst molars
(C) during the 4 stages: pretreament (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), 6 years (T3), and 22 years
(T4) posttreatment.
Valladares-Neto et al
531
could also be inuenced by gingival phenotype. The authors of a study found that where there is thickness of
more than 0.5 mm in the attached gingiva, the risk of
gingival recession is reduced.18
Overall, simultaneous maxillary and mandibular arch
expansion using a nonsurgical approach is a viable
procedure for young adults; in selected cases, it can offer
a clinically favorable result in the long term. First,
preference should be given to SRME because of
problems arising from rapid maxillary expansion in
adults. The rapid rate of expansion can cause pain and
discomfort.19 Second, a clear atresia of the mandibular
arch should be a morphologic condition that needs
expansion. In addition, the muscular balance should
also contribute to better stability. Our case report
showed a mathematical reduction in the transverse
dimension in a patient from 23 to 45 years of age,
with no clinical signicance, except at the mandibular
intercanine distance, which maintained its stability. No
periodontal disease occurred in this patient with good
oral hygiene.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
REFERENCES
1. Sinclair PM, Little RM. Maturation of untreated normal occlusions.
Am J Orthod 1983;83:114-23.
2. Tibana RH, Palagi LM, Miguel JA. Changes in dental arch measurements of young adults with normal occlusiona longitudinal
study. Angle Orthod 2004;74:618-23.
3. Carter GA, McNamara JA Jr. Longitudinal dental arch changes in
adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:88-99.
4. Thilander B. Orthodontic relapse versus natural development. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:562-3.
5. Ferris T, Alexander RG, Boley J, Buschang PH. Long-term stability
of combined rapid palatal expansion-lip bumper therapy followed
by full xed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;
128:310-25.
6. Vargo J, Buschang PH, Boley JC, English JD, Behrents RG,
Owen AH 3rd. Treatment effects and short-term relapse of
Valladares-Neto et al
532
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. Ricketts RM, Roth RH, Chaconas SJ, Schulhof RJ, Engel GA.
Orthodontic diagnosis and planning. Denver, Colo: Rocky
Mountain Orthodontics; 1982.
14. Kahl-Nieke B, Fischbach H, Schwarze CW. Treatment and
postretention changes in dental arch width dimensionsa
long-term evaluation of inuencing cofactors. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:368-78.
15. Bondevik O. Changes in occlusion between 23 and 34 years. Angle
Orthod 1998;68:75-80.
16. Bondevik O, Espeland L, Stenvik A. Dental arch changes from 22
to 43 years of age: are they different in individuals with high versus
low mandibular plane angle? Eur J Orthod 2015;37:367-72.
17. Renkema AM, Navratilova Z, Mazurova K, Katsaros C, Fudalej PS.
Gingival labial recessions and the post-treatment proclination of
mandibular incisors. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:508-13.
18. Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of
mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in
adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:e1-8.
19. Capelozza Filho L, Cardoso Neto J, da Silva Filho OG, Ursi WJ.
Non-surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion in adults. Int J
Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 1996;11:57-66.