Comparison of traditional RPE with two types of micro-implant assisted RPE: CBCT study Heesoo Oh, Joorok Park, Manuel O. Lagravere-Vich Seminars in Orthodontics Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 60-68 (March 2019) DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2019.02.007 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions
Figure 1. Three different maxillary expansion appliances. A. Conventional tooth-anchored maxillary expander (TAME), B. Bone-anchored maxillary expander (BAME), C. Tooth-bone anchored expander (MSE). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) Seminars in Orthodontics 2019 25, 60-68DOI: (10.1053/j.sodo.2019.02.007) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions
Figure 2. Skeletal and dental measurements. Seminars in Orthodontics 2019 25, 60-68DOI: (10.1053/j.sodo.2019.02.007) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions
Figure 3. Effect of expansion on various areas in the MSE group. Seminars in Orthodontics 2019 25, 60-68DOI: (10.1053/j.sodo.2019.02.007) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions
Figure 4. Palatal opening. Examples of CBCT images of the three different maxillary expansion groups at T2. A. BAME group; B. TAME group; C. MSE group. Seminars in Orthodontics 2019 25, 60-68DOI: (10.1053/j.sodo.2019.02.007) Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions