scholarly journals To: Editor, The Angle Orthodontist Response to: Recovery of multiple impacted maxillary teeth in a hyperdivergent Class I patient using temporary skeletal anchorage devices and augmented corticotomy. Kyung A. Kim; Hyeon-Shik Hwang; Kyu-Rhim Chung; Seong-Hun Kim; Gerald Nelson. Angle Orthod. 2018;88:107–121.

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 843-843
Author(s):  
Gaetano Isola ◽  
Giovanni Matarese
Keyword(s):  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Temporary Skeletal Anchorage

scholarly journals Recovery of multiple impacted maxillary teeth in a hyperdivergent Class I patient using Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices and augmented corticotomy

2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyung A. Kim ◽  
Hyeon-Shik Hwang ◽  
Kyu-Rhim Chung ◽  
Seong-Hun Kim ◽  
Gerald Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Temporary Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Smile Esthetics ◽  
Stable Result

ABSTRACT Treatment of multiple impacted teeth is challenging. Three-dimensional treatment planning can help in delivering a better outcome. This case report presents a patient with an incomplete dental transposition between the canine and lateral incisor of the maxillary right side associated with the impaction of a dilacerated right central incisor. Using a two-stage surgical exposure and augmented corticotomy, the patient's occlusion and smile esthetics were significantly improved, and Class I occlusal relationships with optimal overjet and overbite were achieved after 50 months of orthodontic treatment. Thirty-month posttreatment records revealed a stable result.

Envisioning Post-treatment Occlusions after Space Closure Using Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Un-Bong Baik ◽  
Junji Sugawara ◽  
Youn-Sic Chun ◽  
Suchita Mandair ◽  
Jae Hyun Park
Keyword(s):  
Post Treatment ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Posterior Tooth ◽  
Space Closure ◽  
Temporary Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Tooth Extractions

Missing posterior teeth and posterior tooth extractions are commonly seen and needed within orthodontic practices. With the invention of temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs), clinicians can now effectively close posterior tooth spaces. Various molar occlusions are discussed to help clinicians envision post-treatment occlusions after posterior teeth space closure using TSADs.

Comparison of skeletal anchorage and tooth-borne maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in Class III malocclusion

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Hoon Lee ◽  
Sang-Duck Koh ◽  
Dong-Hwa Chung ◽  
Jin-Woo Lee ◽  
Sang-Min Lee
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Maxillary Protraction ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Residual Growth

Summary Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the results of skeletal anchorage (SAMP) and tooth- borne (TBMP) maxillary protraction followed by fixed appliance in growing skeletal Class III patients. Materials and methods Patients treated with maxillary protraction were selected and classified into two groups (SAMP: n = 19, mean age = 11.19 years; TBMP: n = 27, mean age = 11.21 years). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0), after the maxillary protraction (T1), and after the fixed appliance treatment (T2) were analysed and all variables were statistically tested to find difference between the two groups. Results Compared to the TBMP, the SAMP showed significant forward growth of maxilla (Co-A point and SN-Orbitale) and improvement in intermaxillary relationship (ANB, AB to mandible plane, and APDI) after the overall treatment (T0–T2), with no significant sagittal changes in maxilla or mandible throughout the fixed appliance treatment (T1–T2). Limitations In maxillary protraction, effects of skeletal anchorage were retrospectively compared with those of dental anchorage, not with Class I or III control. Conclusions and implications After maxillary protraction, skeletal and tooth-borne anchorage did not cause significant differences in the residual growth of maxilla throughout the phase II treatment. Orthopaedic effects with skeletal anchorage showed appropriate stability in maxilla and intermaxillary relationship even after fixed appliance treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document