Lateral, skeletal and dental changes following maxillary expansion
Date
1975
DOI
Authors
Angus, David J.
Version
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
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]
Description
PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please log in with a valid BU account to access and click Download. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact open-help@bu.edu.
Thesis (M.Sc.D.)--Boston University School of Graduate Dentistry, 1975. Orthodontics.
Bibliography included.
Thesis (M.Sc.D.)--Boston University School of Graduate Dentistry, 1975. Orthodontics.
Bibliography included.
License
This 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 open-help@bu.edu.