monecel
Ascending
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2023
- Posts
- 446
- Reputation
- 333
I have been discussing with some acquaintances about how beneficial MSE (Maxillary Skeletal Expander) actually is, if beneficial at all. A narrow palate is commonly seen as a major failing point, however if you look at the many examples of MSE expansions, a lot of the time the definition in the face worsens and other facial features get impacted (lip shape, nose width, face width, nose height etc.).
Here is an example of how RPE (Rapid Palate Expansion) can change other facial features negatively:
A lot of the people who get MSE done have an average palate width and average maxilla width as well, turning them into a gapped-tooth ogre at a great monetary expense. Also it can cause asymmetry due to the different forces due to random bone structure differences, and with greater expansion this becomes more obvious.
Some examples of negative RPE/MSE before and afters:
Seen enough? lol
While for a few select individuals with severe palate deformity or breathing issues, standard MSE is NOT OPTIMAL or at minimum not predictable for facial aesthetics. What should also be mentioned is that a lot of the RPE/MSE before-and-afters include other alterations like fixing crooked teeth and/or an over or underbite. It may often be the case that the major failing point may have been unrelated to the frontal palate width and the other changes make people think it is a good idea.
I propose that MSE should not be done for individuals who have front palates with a width of above ~3cm. What is more ideal (as discussed in some other posts) is an expansion of the back palate. What has not really been discussed in detail however is the best way to do this.
Appliances which apply angular pressured rotative force to all of the molars and biscupids to increase back palate width are the most ideal for those with narrow palates / 6-teeth smiles. Rather than an implanted device into the hard palate, such devices are attached to the molars. These come with numerous advantages, first being aesthetics.
Example of optimal rotation:
The continued rotated force on the molars causes a back-expansion of the alveolar process of the maxilla, rather than an artificial and forced frontal canine fossa split and seperation.
Due to the angular process of the back of the palate, I propose that there may also be secondary modulation of the zygomatic bones, as they connect further to the back of the maxilla, expansion may affect zygomatic prominance. Rather than creating a suture in the processus alveolaris, an expansion at the back of the palate looks more likely to positively improve facial aesthetics.
The two appliances I have personally researched and plan to use consists of the Bihelix appliance and Nitanium Palate Expander2 appliance. Unlike something like the quad helix, the two seem to almost selectively increase the width of the back-palate compared to the front.
Bi-Helix Appliance (Lower):
Nitanium Palate Expander2 Appliance (Upper):
A shape like below (in red) seems more optimal for facial aesthetics than the blue:
I will report my experiences with these two appliances when I get my hands on them, or if I discover a more suitable device.
Thx for read
Here is an example of how RPE (Rapid Palate Expansion) can change other facial features negatively:
A lot of the people who get MSE done have an average palate width and average maxilla width as well, turning them into a gapped-tooth ogre at a great monetary expense. Also it can cause asymmetry due to the different forces due to random bone structure differences, and with greater expansion this becomes more obvious.
Some examples of negative RPE/MSE before and afters:
Seen enough? lol
While for a few select individuals with severe palate deformity or breathing issues, standard MSE is NOT OPTIMAL or at minimum not predictable for facial aesthetics. What should also be mentioned is that a lot of the RPE/MSE before-and-afters include other alterations like fixing crooked teeth and/or an over or underbite. It may often be the case that the major failing point may have been unrelated to the frontal palate width and the other changes make people think it is a good idea.
I propose that MSE should not be done for individuals who have front palates with a width of above ~3cm. What is more ideal (as discussed in some other posts) is an expansion of the back palate. What has not really been discussed in detail however is the best way to do this.
Appliances which apply angular pressured rotative force to all of the molars and biscupids to increase back palate width are the most ideal for those with narrow palates / 6-teeth smiles. Rather than an implanted device into the hard palate, such devices are attached to the molars. These come with numerous advantages, first being aesthetics.
Example of optimal rotation:
The continued rotated force on the molars causes a back-expansion of the alveolar process of the maxilla, rather than an artificial and forced frontal canine fossa split and seperation.
Due to the angular process of the back of the palate, I propose that there may also be secondary modulation of the zygomatic bones, as they connect further to the back of the maxilla, expansion may affect zygomatic prominance. Rather than creating a suture in the processus alveolaris, an expansion at the back of the palate looks more likely to positively improve facial aesthetics.
The two appliances I have personally researched and plan to use consists of the Bihelix appliance and Nitanium Palate Expander2 appliance. Unlike something like the quad helix, the two seem to almost selectively increase the width of the back-palate compared to the front.
Bi-Helix Appliance (Lower):
Nitanium Palate Expander2 Appliance (Upper):
A shape like below (in red) seems more optimal for facial aesthetics than the blue:
I will report my experiences with these two appliances when I get my hands on them, or if I discover a more suitable device.
Thx for read
