English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives To evaluate the volume, amount, and localization of root resorption in the upper first premolars by micro–computed tomography (micro-CT) after three different rapid maxillary expansion appliances and two different activation rhythms. Materials and Methods The patients were divided into three groups; Hyrax, acrylic cap splint (ACS), and full coverage acrylic bonded (FCAB) appliances. Each group was then divided into the following two subgroups: rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and semirapid maxillary expansion (SRME). After expansion was completed, the appliances were stabilized for 12 weeks during the retention period. For each group, 10 premolars (for a total of 60 premolars) were scanned with the micro-CT (SkyScan). The reconstructed 3D images of each root sample were divided into six regions. The resorption craters on these six different root surfaces were analyzed by special CTAn (SkyScan) software for direct volumetric measurements. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis. Results The total volume of root resorption was less with FCAB than with ACS and Hyrax (P &amp;lt; .001). In all groups, a greater volume of resorption was found on the buccal surface than on the lingual surface (P &amp;lt; .001). No significant differences were found between the RME and SRME groups (P &amp;gt; .05). Conclusions All expansion appliances caused root resorption in the upper first premolar teeth, but FCAB may be safer in terms of root resorption. The resorption craters were generally concentrated on the buccal surface. There was no effect of activation rhythm on root resorption.

Does the rhythm and appliance type of rapid maxillary expansion have an effect on root resorption?