Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
206,690 studies31 sourcesUpdated 18 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Journal of Clinical Medicine

The Condyle–Fossa Relationship After Maxillary Expansion with Tooth-Borne and Tooth-Bone-Borne Appliances: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study at the End of Retention

  • Esra Ağaoğlu Mogul1
  • Merve Yelken Kendirci2
  • Melda Pelin Akkitap2
  1. 1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, 34015 Istanbul, Türkiye
  2. 2Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, 34015 Istanbul, Türkiye
Open at sourceDOICite

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Maxillary expansion changes the occlusion and may alter the position of the mandibular condyle. Most cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies have assessed the joint shortly after tooth-borne expansion and in the sagittal plane only. This study evaluated the condyle–fossa relationship from before expansion to the end of passive retention in the sagittal and coronal planes. Methods: In this retrospective study, 33 adolescents aged 12–17 years (66 condyles) treated with a tooth-borne Hyrax appliance (n = 16) or a tooth-bone-borne microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE; n = 17) were analysed. CBCT scans obtained before expansion (T0) and at the end of retention (T1; mean T0–T1 interval 6.3 months) were used to measure five joint spaces, the Pullinger concentricity index, intermolar width, overjet and overbite. Changes were assessed with paired tests and equivalence testing (±0.5 mm). Results: No joint space changed significantly (largest mean change 0.25 mm), and nine of ten were equivalent to no change within ±0.5 mm. The Pullinger index did not change, although individual category changes were frequent. Intermolar width increased by 5.07 mm (p < 0.001). No difference between appliances was detected in exploratory, baseline-adjusted analyses. Conclusions: No systematic group-level change in the condyle–fossa relationship was detected at the end of retention; individual variability was considerable.

Related

  1. Micro-computed tomography analysis of root and canal morphology in maxillary primary molars
    Alaa M. Eldehna, Sherief Elzahar, Ahmad H. Ahmad +7
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral medicineCrossrefDOAJ
  2. Orofacial Myofunctional Therapy to Treat Residual Obstructive Sleep Apnoea in Children Treated with Adenotonsillectomy and Maxillary Expansion: An Interventional Study
    Derek Mahony, Niroj Bhattarai, Peter Petocz +2
    Journal of clinical medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPhysiologyEurope PMCCrossref
  3. Aerodynamic and anatomical changes of the upper airway after maxillary skeletal expansion in adults
    Zhicun Li, Sirui Zhu, Yang Xu +3
    BMC Oral HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC
  4. Five-Year Marginal Bone-Level Changes Around Immediately Loaded or Immediately Restored Implants After Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Three Implant-Site Preparation Techniques
    Cristian Niky Cumpătă, Paolo Di Francesco, Mădălina Anca Moldovan +3
    Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Delayed Complications After Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with a Bovine Xenohybrid Bone Graft: A Retrospective Clinical Case Series.
    Patrick Bandura, Christian Philipp Schnell, Claas Willem Molsen +7
    Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{mogul2026condylefossa,
  title = {{The Condyle–Fossa Relationship After Maxillary Expansion with Tooth-Borne and Tooth-Bone-Borne Appliances: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study at the End of Retention}},
  author = {Esra Ağaoğlu Mogul and Merve Yelken Kendirci and Melda Pelin Akkitap},
  journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.3390/jcm15218503},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8503},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The Condyle–Fossa Relationship After Maxillary Expansion with Tooth-Borne and Tooth-Bone-Borne Appliances: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study at the End of Retention
AU  - Esra Ağaoğlu Mogul
AU  - Merve Yelken Kendirci
AU  - Melda Pelin Akkitap
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/02
JO  - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO  - 10.3390/jcm15218503
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8503
AB  - Background/Objectives: Maxillary expansion changes the occlusion and may alter the position of the mandibular condyle. Most cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies have assessed the joint shortly after tooth-borne expansion and in the sagittal plane only. This study evaluated the condyle–fossa relationship from before expansion to the end of passive retention in the sagittal and coronal planes. Methods: In this retrospective study, 33 adolescents aged 12–17 years (66 condyles) treated with a tooth-borne Hyrax appliance (n = 16) or a tooth-bone-borne microimplant-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE; n = 17) were analysed. CBCT scans obtained before expansion (T0) and at the end of retention (T1; mean T0–T1 interval 6.3 months) were used to measure five joint spaces, the Pullinger concentricity index, intermolar width, overjet and overbite. Changes were assessed with paired tests and equivalence testing (±0.5 mm). Results: No joint space changed significantly (largest mean change 0.25 mm), and nine of ten were equivalent to no change within ±0.5 mm. The Pullinger index did not change, although individual category changes were frequent. Intermolar width increased by 5.07 mm (p < 0.001). No difference between appliances was detected in exploratory, baseline-adjusted analyses. Conclusions: No systematic group-level change in the condyle–fossa relationship was detected at the end of retention; individual variability was considerable.
SN  - 2077-0383
ER  -