scholarly journals Comparison of anterior and posterior mini-implant-assisted maxillary incisor intrusion: Root resorption and treatment efficiency

2016 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 746-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isil Aras ◽  
Ali V. Tuncer
Keyword(s):  
Root Resorption ◽  
T Test ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Implant Loosening ◽  
Treatment Efficiency ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors

ABSTRACT Objective:  To compare, through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the root resorption and treatment efficiency of two different mini-implant-assisted modalities in intruding the maxillary incisors. Materials and Methods:  Thirty-two adults who had deep bite and elongated maxillary incisors were randomly allocated to two groups: anterior mini-implant group (AMG) and posterior mini-implant group (PMG). In the AMG, approximately 40 g of force was applied per side with elastic chains from mini-implants placed between the lateral incisors and canines and in the PMG, with beta-titanium wires from mini-implants placed between the second premolars and first molars. This study was conducted on CBCT scans taken before intrusion and after 4 months of intrusion. Data were analyzed by means of a paired t-test, independent t-test, and Pearson’s correlation test. Results:  One patient was excluded from the AMG due to mini-implant loosening. While the incisors showed a significant reduction in length and volume, this amount was greater in the AMG, especially in the central incisors (P < .05). Together with the mean intrusion rates of 0.62 and 0.39 mm/mo in the AMG and PMG respectively, the center of resistance of the incisors showed distal movement with labial tipping; these changes were greater in the PMG (P < .001). Volumetric root resorption was correlated with the amount of intrusion (P < .05). Conclusions:  Intrusion anchoring from posterior mini-implants is preferred in cases of upright incisors, as the use of such mechanics directs the roots into the spongiosa where they undergo less root resorption and more labial tipping.

scholarly journals A prospective clinical trial of the effects produced by the Connecticut intrusion arch on the maxillary dental arch

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-506
Author(s):  
Alessandro Schwertner ◽  
Renato Rodrigues de Almeida ◽  
Renata Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin ◽  
Thais Maria Freire Fernandes ◽  
Paula Oltramari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Correction Method ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Distal Surface ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective To assess and compare the effects produced in the maxillary dental arch by means of Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA) with or without a cinch back on the distal end of the tube of the first molars. Materials and Methods This study included 44 patients with a mean age of 13.1 ± 1.8 years treated for deep bite with a CIA randomly divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), 22 patients with initial mean age of 12.72 ± 1.74 years treated with the CIA in the upper arch without a cinch back on the distal surface of the tube of the first molars, and group 2 (G2), 22 patients with an initial mean age of 13.67 ± 2.03 years treated with the CIA with a cinch back. Lateral cephalograms were available before treatment (T1) and after intrusion of maxillary incisors (T2). The mean treatment period was 5.5 ± 1.45 months. Intragroup and intergroup changes in the maxillary incisor and molar positions were analyzed by paired and independent t-tests associated with the Holm-Bonferroni correction method for multiple comparisons (P < .05). Results There were significant differences between groups in terms of maxillary incisor displacement. The maxillary incisors flared labially (2.17°) and proclined (1.68 mm) in group 1, whereas a palatal inclination (−1.99°) and retroclination (−1.13 mm) was observed in group 2. No significant differences were found for the molar positions between the groups. Conclusions The presence or absence of a distal bend in CIA affects incisor tipping and proclination during intrusion mechanics.

scholarly journals Effects of mandibular incisor intrusion obtained using a conventional utility arch vs bone anchorage

2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 767-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esen Aydoğdu ◽  
Ömür Polat Özsoy
Keyword(s):  
T Test ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Mandibular Incisor ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Mandibular Incisors ◽  
Center Of Resistance

Abstract Objective: To compare the dentofacial effects of mandibular incisor intrusion using mini-implants with those of a conventional incisor intrusion mechanic, the utility arch. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six deep-bite patients were enrolled to one of the two groups. In group 1 the mandibular incisors were intruded using a 0.16 × 0.22–inch stainless-steel segmental wire connected to two mini-implants. In group 2 the mandibular incisor intrusion was performed using a conventional utility arch. Conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at pretreatment and at the end of intrusion. Thirty landmarks were identified to measure 23 linear and 20 angular measurements. Intragroup comparisons were made using a paired t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Intergroup comparisons were made using a Student's t-test or a Mann-Whitney U-test. Results: The duration of intrusion was 5 months for group 1 and 4 months for group 2. In the implant group, the mean amount of change was 0.4 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.3 mm/mo for the center of resistance, and in the utility arch group, the mean amount of change was 0.25 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.2 mm/mo for the center of resistance. The mandibular incisors showed an average protrusion of 7° in the implant group and 8° in the utility arch group. Conclusions: Incisor intrusion that was achieved using an implant-supported segmented archwire was no different than the movement achieved with a conventional intrusion utility arch. The only difference between the two methods was in the molar movement.

scholarly journals Intrusive Arch versus Miniscrew-Supported Intrusion for Deep Bite Correction

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 1841-1846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manal Mohamed El Namrawy ◽  
Fouad El Sharaby ◽  
Mohamed Bushnak
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Skeletal Effects ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Group 1

BACKGROUND: Intrusion of maxillary incisors is the treatment of choice to correct deep bite problem in gummy smile patients. AIM: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of miniscrew-supported intrusion versus intrusion arch for treatment of deep bite.METHODS: The study sample consisted of 30 post pubertal patients (21 females and 9 males) with an age range from 17 to 29. They were divided into 2 groups (15 subjects in each group). Group 1 underwent maxillary incisor intrusion using miniscrews, and in group 2 intrusive arch was used. Pre and post-treatment lateral cephalometric x-rays and study models were made to evaluate the demo-skeletal effects. During the study period, no other intervention was attempted. Paired t-test was used to study the changes after treatment.RESULTS: The mean amount of overbite correction was 2.6 ± 0.8 (0.49 mm per month) in the miniscrew-supported intrusion group and 2.9 ± 0.8 (0.60 mm per month) in the intrusive arch group. No statistically significant difference was found in the extent of maxillary incisor intrusion between the two systems. The two intrusion systems were statistically different in the extent of incisor proclination, as an intrusive arch group tended to proline upper incisors more than miniscrews-supported intrusion group.CONCLUSION: Both systems successfully intruded the 4 maxillary incisors almost with no loss to the sagittal and vertical anchorage, although intrusive arch tended to proline upper incisors significantly.

scholarly journals Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Maxillary Incisors and the Incisive Canal by Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in an Adult Population of Mangaluru

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaishnavi D ◽  
◽  
Harshitha V ◽  
Kishore K ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
Interindividual Variation ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Incisive Canal ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maxillary Incisors

Background: Maxillary anterior teeth play a crucial role in aesthetics, phonetics, and mastication. For successful orthodontic treatment evaluating the morphology of the alveolar bone and incisive canal would help in avoiding root resorption, dehiscence, and fenestration. This study is aimed to research the configurational relationships among maxillary incisors, alveolar bone, and incisive canal through Cone Beam Computerated Tomography (CBCT). Methods: CBCT images of 35 orthodontic patients were evaluated for length of the canal (L); angles between the palatal plane and the maxillary alveolar border (01),the incisive canal (02), and maxillary incisor (03); distance from the right maxillary incisor to the incisive canal (D). All the measurements were performed on sagittal plane with the exception of (D) which was made on axial plane. Statistical analysis was performed on the above parameters using two sample test and Pearson’s correlation analysis. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between males and females for all the variables although there were large interindividual variation. There was a positive moderate correlation between 01 and 02 (0.480), 01 and 03 (0.487), 02 and 03 (0.345). The mean value for L and D were 10.38mm and 4.14mm respectively. Conclusion: There exists a large interindividual variability for incisive canal, proximity of incisors with that of incisive canal which could not be precisely predicted by the conventional cephalograms. The results of the study could be helpful clinically in planning orthodontic treatment for significant intrusion and retraction of maxillary incisors

scholarly journals Flexural strength of mini-implants developed for Herbst appliance skeletal anchorage: a study in Minipigs br1 cadavers

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 124-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Barretto Lopes ◽  
Gladys Cristina Dominguez ◽  
Caio Biasi ◽  
Jesualdo Luiz Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Flexural Strength ◽  
T Test ◽  
Posterior Region ◽  
Anterior Region ◽  
Herbst Appliance ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible ◽  
Student’S T Test

OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to verify if mini-implant prototypes (MIP) developed for Herbst appliance anchorage are capable of withstanding orthopedic forces, and to determine whether the flexural strength of these MIP varies depending on the site of insertion (maxilla and mandible). METHODS: Thirteen MIP were inserted in three minipig cadavers (six in the maxilla and seven in the mandible). The specimens were prepared and submitted to mechanical testing. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for each region. A two-way Student's t test was used to compare the strength between the sites. A one-way Student's t test was performed to test the hypothesis. Orthopedic forces above 1.0 kgf were considered. RESULTS: The MIP supported flexural strength higher than 1.0 kgf (13.8 ± 2.3 Kg, in the posterior region of the maxilla and 20.5 ± 5.2 Kg in the anterior region of the mandible) with a significantly lower flexural strength in the anterior region of the mandible (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MIP are capable of withstanding orthopedic forces, and are more resistant in the anterior region of the mandible than in the posterior region of the maxilla in Minipigs br1 cadavers.

scholarly journals Evaluation of aesthetic anteroposterior position of maxillary incisors in patients with extraction treatment using facial reference lines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 2951-2960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danqing He ◽  
Yan Gu ◽  
Yannan Sun
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Relative Position ◽  
Vertical Line ◽  
Class I ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors ◽  
Extraction Treatment

Objective To examine whether facial reference lines could be used to evaluate the anteroposterior position of the maxillary incisors in patients that had undergone extraction treatment. Methods The study enrolled Angle Class I patients who had favourable facial profiles after extraction treatment. Superimposition of post-treatment lateral photographs and cephalograms were constructed and anatomical landmarks on the forehead were identified. Reference lines of the forehead’s anterior limit line (FALL) and the vertical line through the soft-tissue glabella (G line) were constructed. The distance between the maxillary incisors and the FALL and G line were measured. Regression analyses were performed between the maxillary incisor position and forehead inclination. Results Forty-one patients (31 females and 10 males) were included in the study. The mean ± SD distances of the facial-axis point of the maxillary incisors (FA)–FALL and FA–G line were 1.8 ± 1.9 mm and –2.4 ± 1.8 mm, respectively. The distance of the maxillary incisors to FALL and the relative position of the maxillary incisors were both significantly correlated with forehead inclination. Conclusions The mean position of the maxillary incisors in patients with extraction was approximately in the middle of the G line and the FALL. Correct maxillary incisor position was correlated with forehead inclination.

scholarly journals Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 176-193
Author(s):  
Demet Süer Tümen ◽  
Orhan Hamamcı
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
T Test ◽  
Upper Lip ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Cephalometric Changes ◽  
Student’S T Test

Aim: The aim of this study was to provide intrusion of upper incisors with applying Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and Miniscrew and to evaluate the dental and skeletal cephalometric effects of these intrusion methods on individuals with deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors. Methodology: The study includes 40 adults, without making sexual distinction, who have at least 4 mm deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors. Two study groups each consisting 20 individuals formed as CIA and Miniscrew groups. Skeletal, dental, soft tissue measurements were done on lateral cephalograms and apical root resorption measurements were done on standard periapical radiographs that were taken from upper four incisor teeth. Statistically, Paired Student’s t-test was used in intragroup comparements and independent Student’s t-test was used in the investigation of differences between groups. Nevertheless, the concern of variables that seen as risk factors with the amount of resorption was investigated with Pearson correlation analysis.  Results: Successful intrusion of four upper incisor teeth with CIA and Mini screw methods and in-significant difference was determined between two methods. Protrusion of upper and lower incisor teeth decrease in interincisal angle and overbite and increase in overjet was stated by intrusion at both of the methods. The decline of the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar was observed in the CIA method. In soft tissue evaluation, decrease of upper lip length, upper lip thickness and distance of upper and lower lip to the Rickett’s plane was observed. Conclusion: The methods used for intrusion showed to cause similar ratio of root resorption.   How to cite this article: Süer Tümen D, Hamamcı O. Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods. Int Dent Res 2021;11(Suppl.1):177-94. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.suppl1.26   Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion in deep-bite correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rami Sosly ◽  
Hisham Mohammed ◽  
Mumen Z Rizk ◽  
Eias Jamous ◽  
Ahmad G. Qaisi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Deep Bite ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Significant Difference

ABSTRACT Objectives: To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion compared with other nonsurgical intrusive mechanics for deep-bite correction. Materials and Methods: Unrestricted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane's CENTRAL as well as manual searches were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A random-effects meta-analysis of continuous data, with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was used. Results: Seven RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis, and the overall quality of evidence was very low to low. When compared with intrusion arches, miniscrews resulted in a more efficient deep-bite reduction with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of −0.48 (95% CI, −0.89 to −0.07). When miniscrews were used, a statistically significant difference was observed favoring less maxillary molar extrusion (SMD, −0.86; 95% CI, −1.46 to −0.27) and more incisor intrusion as measured from centroid to palatal plane (SMD, −0.95; 95% CI, −1.41 to −0.49). Results also showed a statistically nonsignificant difference regarding the amount of resultant root resorption between miniscrews and intrusion arches. Conclusions: There is weak evidence indicating efficient deep-bite correction using miniscrews. Root resorption seems to be an associated adverse effect that occurs regardless of the intrusive mechanics used. These conclusions should be viewed with great caution as further well-designed long-term research is recommended.

scholarly journals Comparison of external apical root resorption with clear aligners and pre-adjusted edgewise appliances in non-extraction cases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaibhav Gandhi ◽  
Shivam Mehta ◽  
Marissa Gauthier ◽  
Jijian Mu ◽  
Chia-Ling Kuo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Apical Root Resorption ◽  
External Apical Root Resorption ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors

Summary Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of external apical root resorption (EARR) observed during the orthodontic treatment with pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (PEA) or clear aligner therapy (CAT) and with 2D or 3D radiographic methods of measuring the root resorption. Search strategy and selection criteria A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the ISRCTN Registry was performed. Studies that have evaluated the amount of root resorption in non-extraction cases using CAT or PEA were selected for the systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed for the amount of root resorption of permanent maxillary incisors using PEA or CAT treatment modalities by either 2D or cone-beam computed tomography radiographic examination. Data collection and analysis Database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A random-effect meta-analysis followed by subgroup comparisons were performed to evaluate EARR. Results A total of 16 studies (4 were prospective and 12 were retrospective) were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. The mean root resorption for the permanent maxillary incisors was in the range from 0.25 to 1.13 mm (overall: 0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75 mm). The mean root resorption difference between CAT and PEA was statistically significant (P &lt; 0.05) for 12 but not for 21, 11, or 22. Limitations One of the drawbacks is a lack of good quality prospective studies, specifically randomized clinical trials in the literature. Conclusions and implications Neither PEA or CAT technique leads to clinically significant root resorption (1 mm) of the maxillary incisors. The amount of EARR of maxillary incisors is not significant in comparing two treatment modalities (PEA and CAT), except for 12, where the PEA group has significantly more EARR when compared to CAT. Registration The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018113051). This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document