Changes of Airway Space and Flow in Patients Treated with Rapid Palatal Expander (RPE): An Observational Pilot Study with Comparison with Non-Treated Patients

Background/Objectives. With a rapid palatal expander (RPE) is reported to be effective in increasing the volume of nasal cavities, with a restoration of physiological nasal airflow. The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate, using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), the volumetric changes and airflow velocity changes in the nasal cavities, retro-palatal and retro-glossal airways, resulting from the use of RPE with dental anchorage (group A), also comparing these data with patients non treated with RPE (group B). Methods. Sixteen subjects (aged 9.34 years) with transverse maxillary deficiency and unilateral posterior crossbite were treated with RPE with dental anchorage. Additionally, 8 patients (aged 11.11 years) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, who did not undergo any orthodontic treatment, were selected as a control group. Expansion was performed until overcorrection was achieved, and the device was left in place for 6 months as fixed retention, followed by another 6 months of night-time removable retention. From the retrospective evaluation, all patients presented two CBCT scans at baseline (T0) and 1-year follow-up (T1). The 3D-Slicer software was used for each CBCT to measure the nasal (VN), retropalatal (VRP), and retroglossal (VRG) volumes, while an iterative Excel spreadsheet allowed for a pilot approximated modeling and calculation of airway flow-related data. Results. Regarding mean age, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.01 *) was found between groups, suggesting that group B is closer to the pubertal growth peak. Analysis between T0 and T1 revealed: (i) a statistically significant increase for volumes VN, VRP and VRG in group A; (ii) a statistically significant increase for VN in group B; (iii) a statistically significant decrease for all variables related to airflow velocity in both groups. Furthermore, comparison between group A and B, regarding variations between T0 and T1, found a statistically significant difference only for VN. Conclusions. Within the limitations of this pilot evaluation, the treatment with RPE revealed promising outcomes for retro-palatal, retro-glossal and nasal volumes, together with clinical changes in airflow velocities.