Dental Marketing
At HIP Creative we partner with orthodontics and help them grow their practices with hands on consulting, marketing frameworks and a proven system. We love this industry and love to share incredible processes that produce real results.
Blog By:
Dentistry Today
Dentistry Today

SharePostShareShare
MARPE in Utah: A Case-Selection Framework for Adult Patients

MARPE in Utah: A Case-Selection Framework for Adult Patients

9/14/2026 8:35:00 AM   |   Comments: 0   |   Views: 44
For most of my career, an adult who walked in with a constricted maxilla, a bilateral crossbite, and a high-vaulted palate got one of two answers: camouflage the transverse discrepancy with dental expansion and accept the tipping, or refer out for surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion. Neither answer was satisfying. The first one trades a skeletal problem for a periodontal one. The second one asks a 32-year-old with a full-time job to consent to an osteotomy for a problem they had been told all their life was "just crowding."

Miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion changed that conversation. It did not eliminate SARPE, and anyone selling it as a universal replacement is overselling it. What it did was open a third lane — and the entire clinical skill now lives in knowing which patients belong in it.

This is the framework I use, what the evidence actually supports, and where I have watched it fail.

What the literature supports — and what it doesn't

The most useful single reference is the systematic review and meta-analysis in the European Journal of Orthodontics on MARPE in late adolescents and adults. Pooled success was 92.5% (95% CI 88.7–96.3%), with individual studies running from roughly 81% to 100%.

That headline number deserves two asterisks.

First, the skeletal effect is more modest than the marketing implies. Mean transverse skeletal expansion across those studies was 2.33 mm (95% CI 1.63–3.03), while intermolar width increased 6.55 mm (95% CI 5.50–7.59). The skeletal component accounted for something on the order of 25–61% of total expansion immediately post-treatment. So you are still getting meaningful dentoalveolar change — increased buccal tipping, reduced buccal bone thickness, and reduced buccal alveolar crest height were all statistically significant. MARPE is skeletal expansion plus dental expansion, not skeletal expansion instead of it.

Second, the authors graded the evidence quality as very low, with serious risk of bias in most included studies. Treat 92.5% as a ceiling achieved in selected cohorts, not a number to quote across the chair.

Suture staging, not chronological age

The single most common case-selection error I see is using the patient's birthday as the screening tool.

Angelieri's CBCT classification of midpalatal suture maturation remains the right instrument. Stages A and B show a straight or scalloped high-density sutural line with little interdigitation. Stage C shows two parallel scalloped lines separated by small low-density spaces. Stage D is fusion in the palatine bone with the maxillary portion still open, and Stage E is fusion through the maxilla with no visible suture. Angelieri's own recommendation was surgical assistance for D and E — and while MARPE has since expanded what is achievable in those stages, the staging still predicts how hard the case will be.

The reason chronological age fails as a proxy is that stage distribution is wide in adults. I have seen Stage C sutures in patients past 30 and Stage E in patients in their early twenties.

That said, age is not noise. In a consecutive adult series using a force-controlled activation protocol published in Head & Face Medicine, overall success was 84.4% — and the split is the instructive part. The successfully expanded group had a mean age of 26.8 ± 8.2 years; the group that ultimately required surgical intervention averaged 41.3 ± 9.9 years. Age was the only significant factor for complications, with risk climbing roughly 10% per year.

The practical translation: age shifts your prior, CBCT sets your plan.

The three things I measure before I quote a case

Midpalatal suture stage. A-through-C, I am confident. D, I counsel the patient that we may be trading a rapid protocol for a slower one, or converting to a surgical plan. E in a patient over 35, I am usually having a SARPE conversation on day one.

Palatal cortical bone at the intended miniscrew sites. Anchorage failure — screw migration or loosening before the suture separates — is the most common way these cases fail mechanically. The thickness commonly cited as adequate is in the 2.5–3 mm range, but that is a starting heuristic, not a rule. Measure it on the actual scan at the actual sites.

Buccal bone over the posterior anchor teeth and existing periodontal status. Given the documented reductions in buccal bone thickness and alveolar crest height, a patient who starts with thin buccal plate and recession has less margin than the meta-analysis averages suggest. Periodontal disease or significant bone loss moves a patient out of the candidate pool regardless of suture stage.

Where it fails, and what to do next

Three failure patterns account for nearly everything I have seen:

No skeletal split. The appliance activates, the teeth move, the suture does not. On a Stage D or E suture you are getting dental compensation dressed up as expansion. This is the argument for taking a mid-treatment scan rather than assuming diastema formation is proof of a split.

Anchorage failure. Screws loosen or migrate under load. Usually a bone-thickness or placement-angle problem, sometimes an activation-rate problem.

Asymmetric opening. One side releases, the other doesn't. Some of these are salvageable with appliance modification; some become segmental surgical cases.

For borderline Stage D cases, piezocorticotomy to reduce resistance along the suture is a reasonable intermediate step before abandoning the non-surgical plan — but it is a surgical adjunct, and it should be presented to the patient as one. And when a case is genuinely failing, converting to SARPE promptly is better clinical judgment than extending an activation protocol that is only producing tipping.

The referral picture in Utah

There is a geographic wrinkle worth naming for anyone practicing in a state like ours. Utah's population is concentrated along the Wasatch Front, but a meaningful share of adult transverse cases originate in rural counties where the nearest CBCT and the nearest orthodontist comfortable placing palatal TADs may be an hour or more apart. That distance changes case selection in practical ways: activation compliance, the feasibility of frequent appliance checks, and whether a patient can realistically return for a mid-treatment scan.

It also changes the referral conversation. General dentists across northern Utah are the first to see these patients — the adult who mentions snoring, the patient with recurring crossbite relapse after teenage expansion, the mouth-breather with a high narrow vault. For those referrers we maintain a plain-language MARPE and MSE treatment overview for Utah patients that covers candidacy, timeline, and cost, so the screening conversation can start in the general chair rather than waiting for the orthodontic consult.

Screening signs worth flagging from the general chair

  • High-vaulted, narrow palate with a posterior crossbite — unilateral or bilateral

  • Buccal corridors that are wide out of proportion to the smile

  • Adult relapse after adolescent expansion

  • Mouth breathing, chronic nasal obstruction, or reported snoring alongside a constricted arch

  • Crowding in an adult who has been told extractions are the only route

None of those confirm candidacy. All of them justify a conversation.

Where I have landed

MARPE has earned its place. It has not earned uncritical enthusiasm. The published success rates are real, the skeletal gains are smaller than patients assume, and the difference between a 92% practice and a 60% practice is almost entirely upstream of the appliance — in the scan, the staging, and the willingness to say no.

If you are adding it to your practice, my advice is narrow your selection criteria harder than you think you need to for the first two dozen cases. The cases you decline are what protect the ones you accept.

About the author: Dr. Fanelli is an orthodontist with Albrechtsen & Fanelli Orthodontics, serving patients from South Ogden, Farr West, and Morgan across northern Utah. The practice treats adult transverse deficiency with MSE, MARPE, and mini-implant-assisted slow palatal expansion protocols. More on their approach to MARPE in Utah.

References

  1. Efficacy of Miniscrew-Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE) in late adolescents and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics, 43(3):313–323.

  2. Angelieri F, et al. Midpalatal suture maturation: Classification method for individual assessment before rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013.

  3. Success and complication rate of miniscrew-assisted non-surgical palatal expansion in adults — a consecutive study using a novel force-controlled polycyclic activation protocol. Head & Face Medicine, 2021.

Category: Orthodontics
SharePostShareShare
You must be logged in to view comments.
More In Orthodontics
Airway Focused Orthodontics
Airway Focused Orthodontics
by Dr. Brock Rondeau
March 2025
GPs Can Deliver Orthodontics with Confidence.
GPs Can Deliver Orthodontics with Confidence.
Dr. Dan German
CE Credits: 1.5
Teeth Under Plastic
Teeth Under Plastic
July 2026
Understanding the Mechanics of the MDA Appliance
Understanding the Mechanics of the MDA Appliance
Kay Gerety
CE Credits: 1.5
Total Blog Activity
997
Total Bloggers
13,451
Total Blog Posts
4,671
Total Podcasts
1,788
Total Videos
Dentaltown Magazine
September 2026
Dentaltown Magazine September 2026 Read Current Issue Read Archived Issues
Sponsors
Townie Perks
Townie® Poll
How many labs do you use on a regular basis?