Lateral, skeletal and dental changes following maxillary expansion
Angus, David J.
MetadataShow full item record
A. Haas (55) has advocated the acrylic maxillary expansion appliance (MEA) feeling it provides a more orthopedic effect with the palatal acrylic transmitting the force of the appliance directly to the vertical palatal walls and alveolar processes and supporting them during retention. R. Wertz (114-116), R. Isaacson and J. Murphy (62) do not agree with the necessity of direct palatal support and feel the same results can be achieved with a totally tooth borne appliance. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the dental and skeletal stability of cases expanded with the acrylic type MEA to the stability of cases expanded with totally tooth borne MEAs. Nineteen subjects were involved in a radiographic study of the skeletal changes while 12 subjects were included in the evaluation of the dental changes. The subjects were divided randomly into two groups. [TRUNCATED]
PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.Thesis (M.Sc.D.)--Boston University School of Graduate Dentistry, 1975. Orthodontics.Bibliography included.
RightsThis work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact email@example.com.