Rapid Expansion of the Maxilla with Mini Implant in Adults

Case Presentation

Austin J Dent.2019; 6(1): 1124.

Rapid Expansion of the Maxilla with Mini Implant in Adults

Ferreira J¹* and Piccoli C²

¹Academician of the Dentistry Course at Avantis College, Brazil

²Master in Orthodontics, Brazil

*Corresponding author: Ferreira J, Academician of The Dentistry Course at Avantis College, Brazil

Received: November 28, 2018; Accepted: January 10, 2019; Published: January 17, 2019


The present work shows a method for the orthopedic expansion of the maxilla supported in mini anchorage implants. Detail the clinical procedures of confection of the expander, with a fixation of two mini-implants in the anterior region of the palate. The procedure is anatomically and operationally feasible. The mini-implants support the force generated by the activation of the filament expander, resulting in the separation of the transverse hemimaxils, which may enhance orthopedic expansion, as well as the periodontal adjustment of procedures and documentation of conventional expansion. It is a mini-implant specially developed to be applied to the dental arch, to allow the anchoring and anchoring of components and accessories for orthodontic treatment. The design of the mini-implant consists of a perforating mini-screw, with its upper part and ready to threading to internally receive a mold that serves to make an intermediate, this fruit being provided in its head with a cross-shaped channel, which together with a longitudinal bore, for securing, yellowing or tying a yarn used in the lace in the inner part of the patient’s mouth. Your applications can be applied in the process of maintaining the position of the teeth, for example by leveling, correction, adjustment, correction, monetary correction or correction of occlusions.

Keywords: Anchorage; Maxilla Expansion; Mini Implant


Andrew Haas, in April 1961, described his experiments as a device hitherto considered controversial by the clinicians: the rapid maxillary expansion apparatus. It exalted its important role in the opening of the medial palatine suture, in the increase of the arch length, in the less need for dental movement when the subsequent use of fixed appliances, as well as in the expansion of the space for nasal ventilation. Although the first report of maxillary disjunction was published 100 years earlier by Angell, Haas’ article was instrumental in spreading the procedure around the world [1].

The posterior cross bite is one of the most prevalent malocclusions in the deciduous and mixed dentition, occurring between 8% and 22% of the individuals [2].

Rapid maxillary expansion, then, has become a common procedure in the orthodontist’s day-to-day life, and is used in cases of real maxillary deficiency where, through the rupture of the medial palatine suture and the disorganization of the other sutures of the craniofacial complex, uncrossing the posterior bite, minimizing transverse skeletal and dental discrepancies, or increasing the perimeter of the upper arch, among other changes [3]. With the constant scientific evolution provided to orthodontists, recent and reliable information allows the reduction of undesirable effects of this important procedure [4].

Analyzing the transversal and vertical alterations resulting from this rapid expansion of the maxilla and the skeletal alveolar and inclination effects of the molars, the clinical use of the maxillary breaker associated with mini implants arose, since these are also widely used in orthodontics due to its versatility, speed, security and efficiency of results [5-7].

Through literary revision, maxillary expansion was demonstrated with the use of mini implants, with the proposal of demonstrating a treatment option, in cases where the use of supported or dentomucosuated tooth expanders has some contraindication.

Case Presentation

Patient female L.D.C.R, 45 years of age attended the Ortoface Dental Clinic to perform Orthodontic treatment, after clinical and radiographic examination we diagnosed unilateral cross bite (Figure 1). Patient complained of having headaches and compromised esthetic restorations.