Retrospective observational study compares maxillary expansion methods affecting airway dimensions.
To evaluate three-dimensional changes in the maxillary sinus (MS) and pharyngeal airway space (PAS) following rapid (RME), slow (SME), and magnetic maxillary expansion (MME) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This retrospective observational study included 60 patients (35 males, 25 females; mean age 12.83 ± 0.92 years) with transverse maxillary deficiency, allocated equally to RME, SME, and MME groups ( n = 20 each). Expansion was carried out according to protocol-specific activation schedules, with appliances retained for three months post-expansion. CBCT scans were obtained at baseline (T1), post-expansion (T2), and after retention (T3). Measurements of MS volume, area, minimum constriction area, and PAS subdivisions (nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx) were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software. An adjusted p -value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All three expansion protocols demonstrated numerical increases in maxillary sinus and pharyngeal airway dimensions during the active expansion phase (T1–T2); however, after adjustment for multiple comparisons, statistically significant changes were limited. Significant within-group increases in maxillary sinus volume were observed only in the slow maxillary expansion group, while no pharyngeal airway parameter showed a statistically significant change after correction. No significant dimensional changes were detected during the retention period (T2-T3). Inter-group comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences among the three expansion protocols. Magnetic maxillary expansion demonstrates anatomical effects comparable to conventional expansion protocols; importantly, no distinct or superior pharyngeal airway benefit was identified, highlighting the limits of airway-related effects of maxillary expansion rather than evidence of enhanced functional respiratory impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Algahefi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: