Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 1243
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 8

A comparison of the quadhelix and the nickel-titanium palatal expander in the treatment of narrow maxillary arches: A prospective clinical study

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, SDM College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, A Constituent Unit of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara University, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Ameet Vaman Revankar
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara (SDM) College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, A Constituent Unit of Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara (SDM) University, Dharwad - 580 009, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_29_22

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the effects of quadhelix and nickel-titanium (NiTi) expander appliances on lower facial height, to quantify, and evaluate dentoalveolar and orthopedic changes in transverse plane, respectively, to estimate the difference in changes between these two appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, ten for the quadhelix and NiTi expander in the two-appliance group, respectively, participated in this study. A total of 8 readings, 1 for clinical facial height, 2 for model analysis, and 5 for posteroanterior cephalometric analysis were recorded. The statistical tests used were, Student's unpaired and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Both appliances individually, produced statistically highly significant (p < 0.01) expansion every month in both premolar and molar areas with more uniform expansion for quadhelix and less expansion in NiTi palatal expander in the premolar region initially. The skeletal to dental change ratio showed that there was more dental change than skeletal with no inter-appliance differences statistically while assessing the PA cephalometric readings. CONCLUSIONS: This study infers that both appliances are equally efficacious maxillary expanders, which are primarily dentoalveolar and not skeletal (p < 0.05).

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded100    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal