Periodontal effects of maxillary expansion in adults using non-surgical expanders with skeletal anchorage vs. surgically assisted maxillary expansion: a systematic review
José Antonio Vidalón, Ismael Loú-Gómez, Aldo Quiñe, Karla Diaz, Carlos Liñán Durán, Manuel O. Lagravère
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Describe and compare harmful periodontal effects as a consequence of maxillary expansion in adult patients with different types of anchorage devices in non-surgical expanders with skeletal anchorage and surgically assisted maxillary expansion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exhaustive search was carried out on the electronic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane and LILACS. Additionally, journal references and grey literature were searched without any restrictions. After the selection and extraction process; risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-1 Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for randomized trials and cohort studies, respectively. RESULTS: Of 621 studies retrieved from the searches, six were finally included in this review. One of them presented a low risk bias, while five were excellent respective to selection, comparability and outcomes. Results showed that maxillary expansion in adults using non-surgical expanders (bone-borne or tooth-bone-borne with bicortical skeletal anchorage) produce less harmful periodontal effects, such as: alveolar bending with an average range from 0.92° to 2.32°, compared to surgically assisted maxillary expansion (tooth-borne) of 6.4°; dental inclination with an average range from 0.07° to 2.4°, compared to surgically assisted maxillary expansion (tooth-borne) with a range from 2.01° to 5.56°. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the bone-borne or tooth-bone-borne with bicortical skeletal anchorage produces fewer undesirable periodontal effects.