Manuscript Submission/Review Call for Reviewers Articles in Press Search Past Issues Current Issue Journal Home Editorial Office Editorial Board Cleft Palate-Cranofacial Foundation Contact Us Sponsors Cleft Palate-Cranofacial Foundation Editorial Office ACAP Homepage Cleft Palate-Cranofacial Foundation
[Full-text Article] [PDF Version]
[PubMed Citation] [Related Articles in PubMed]


doi: 10.1597/03-107.1
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 121–127.

A New Protocol for Maxillary Protraction in Cleft Patients: Repetitive Weekly Protocol of Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions

Eric Jein-Wein Liou, D.D.S., M.S.
Wen-Ching Tsai, D.D.S.

Dr. Eric Jein-Wein Liou is Assistant Professor and Director, Department of Orthodontics and Craniofacial Dentistry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Dr. Wen-Ching Tsai is Attending Staff, Department of Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Submitted July 2003; Accepted March 2004.

Objective: It was hypothesized that, through a repetitive weekly protocol of Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions (Alt-RAMEC), the maxilla in cleft patients could be protracted more effectively than with a single course of rapid maxillary expansion (RME).

Methods: Twenty-six consecutive unilateral cleft lip and palate patients at the age of mixed dentition were included in this prospective clinical study. The rapid maxillary expansion group included the first 16 consecutive patients undergoing 1 week of rapid maxillary expansion (1 mm/day) followed by 5 months, 3 weeks of maxillary protraction. The Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions group included the next 10 consecutive patients undergoing 9 weeks of Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions followed by 3 months, 3 weeks of maxillary protraction. Daily activation of the weekly expansion or constriction was 1.0 mm. Two-hinged expanders and intraoral maxillary protraction springs were used in both groups. Treatment results were evaluated cephalometrically.

Results: The amount of maxillary anterior displacement by the 2-hinged expander in the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions group was 3.0 ± 0.9 mm at A point, significantly greater than the 1.6 ± 1.0 mm in the rapid maxillary expansion group. The amount of maxillary advancement with intraoral protraction springs in the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions group was 2.9 ± 1.9 mm at A point, significantly greater than the 0.9 ± 1.1 mm in the rapid maxillary expansion group. The overall amount of maxillary advancement in the Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions group was 5.8 ± 2.3 mm at A point. This result remained stable, without significant relapse after 2 years.

Conclusions: Maxillary protraction using the 2-hinged expander, a repetitive weekly protocol of Alternate Rapid Maxillary Expansions and Constrictions, and intraoral protraction springs is most effective, with stable results at 2-year follow-up.

KEY WORDS:cleft, maxillary protraction, maxillary rapid expansion


© 2005, The American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association