Journal
ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 91, Issue 6, Pages 725-732Publisher
E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/020221-100.1
Keywords
Pain; Quadhelix; Hyrax; Questionnaire
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The study evaluated perceived pain and jaw function impairment in 60 patients aged 10.2 to 15 years undergoing slow maxillary expansion using quadhelix and rapid maxillary expansion using conventional banded hyrax. Results showed similar outcomes in pain and jaw function impairment between the two groups, with patients adapting well within the first week.
Objectives: To evaluate and compare perceived pain and jaw function impairment during the first 4 weeks with slow maxillary expansion (SME) using quadhelix and rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using conventional banded hyrax. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients aged 10.2 to 15 years were enrolled and consecutively recruited to either the quadhelix group (QG) or hyrax group (HG). A questionnaire was used to evaluate pain, jaw function impairment, and analgesic consumption in the first 7 days, at 2 weeks, and at 4 weeks. Results: Fifty-five patients (43 girls and 12 boys) completed the questionnaire at all time points (27 in the QG and 28 in the HG). Except at 4 hours, there were no significant differences between the groups regarding pain from teeth, tongue, and palate. Patients started to adapt after day 3. Patients in the HG group reported significantly higher scores for difficulty in swallowing (moderate to severe) during the first 6 days. In both groups, minimal effects were found on speech and the majority of patients did not experience difficulty in yawning or laughing. There was no significant difference in analgesic consumption between the groups. No correlations were found between age, gender, or malocclusion type and any of the investigated outcomes. Conclusions: Quadhelix for SME and conventional banded hyrax for RME were well tolerated by patients after 1 week. The decision to use either appliance could be based on factors not related to patient experiences. (Angle Orthod. 2021;91:725-732.)
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available