Comparison of the Haas Expander and the Elastodontic Device for the Resolution of Transverse Discrepancies in Growing Patients: A Single-Centre Observational Study

Eleonora Ortu; Sara Di Nicolantonio; Samuele Cova; Davide Pietropaoli; Lucia De Simone; Annalisa Monaco

doi:10.3390/reports7020041

Reports (May 2024)

Comparison of the Haas Expander and the Elastodontic Device for the Resolution of Transverse Discrepancies in Growing Patients: A Single-Centre Observational Study

Eleonora Ortu,
Sara Di Nicolantonio,
Samuele Cova,
Davide Pietropaoli,
Lucia De Simone,
Annalisa Monaco

Affiliations

Eleonora Ortu: MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
Sara Di Nicolantonio: MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
Samuele Cova: Independent Researcher, Cles, 38023 Trento, Italy
Davide Pietropaoli: MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
Lucia De Simone: MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
Annalisa Monaco: MeSVA Department, Dental Unit, University of L’Aquila, P.le S. Tommasi, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/reports7020041
Journal volume & issue: Vol. 7, no. 2
p. 41

Abstract

Read online

Background: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of using two different devices to treat upper palatal discrepancies evaluated with a digital intraoral scanner. Methods: A total of 64 patients were enrolled and treated with either an elastodontic expansion device (32 patient test group, 16 females and 16 males, mean age 7.08 ± 0.44) or Haas expander (32 patient control group, 16 females and 16 males, mean age 7.32 ± 0.50). The two groups exhibited similar orthodontic features. The orthodontic criteria were: skeletal class I relationship; molar class I relationship; complete eruption of upper sixths; presence of unilateral or bilateral cross bite. All dental casts were examined and subsequently scanned with an intraoral scanner (I-Tero) pre-treatment (T0) and 12 months after the onset of therapy (T1) to assess the distance between the decidous upper canines (ICW, intercanine width) and the distance between the mesiopalatal cusps of the upper first molars (IMW, intermolar width). For statistical analysis, the t-test for continous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables were used, respectively. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the mean and SD of the expansions that resulted from the Haas expander and the elastodontic devices (Haas expander vs. Eptamed: ICW_T1 (Haas) = 42.34 (3.09), ICW_T1 (Eptamed) = 42.69 (2.77); p = 0.743; IMW_T1 (Haas) = 34.22 (2.29), IMW_T1 (Eptamed) = 34.00 (2.56); p = 0.800). The two devices were similarly effective. Conclusions: Elastodontic devices and the Haas expander can successfully help the orthodontist to conduct upper arch expansion treatment. However, elastodontic devices are more comfortable during the resolution of palatal discrepancies compared to palatal expander devices.

Published in Reports

ISSN: 2571-841X (Online)
Publisher: MDPI AG
Country of publisher: Switzerland
LCC subjects: Medicine: Medicine (General): Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
Website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/reports

About the journal

Abstract

Keywords