Comparison of the intrusive effects of miniscrews and utility arches

Polat-Özsoy, Ömür; Arman-Özçırpıcı, Ayça; Veziroglu, Firdevs; Çetinşahin, Alev

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.040

Cited by 41 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…27 The present study was in comparison with the study by Polat-Ozsoy et al in which the mean intrusion of incisor segment was 2.97 AE 0.4 mm in implant group and 1.81 AE 0.5 mm in utility arch group in relation to palatal plane. 28 The mean intrusion achieved by Nayak USK et al was 3.29 mm with mini implants and 1.29 mm with utility arches in a period of six months. 29 The present study showed similar results in implant group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch

Kumar

Datana

Londhe

et al. 2017

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch

Kumar

Datana

Londhe

et al. 2017

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These findings are in accordance with Polat-Ozsoy et al's study reporting intrusion rates of 0.27 mm/month and 0.44 mm/month with utility arches and mini-implants, respectively, and also with Deguchi et al who investigated the differential intrusion effects of J-hook headgear (0.15 mm/ month) and mini-implants (0.55 mm/month) with reference to the incisal edge. 7,9 Deguchi et al reasoned out that the lack of patient cooperation resulting in headgear removal that led to significant difference between groups. 9 Conversely, Senisik and Turkkahraman did not find any intergroup difference at the end of the 7-month period with intrusion rates of 0.31 and 0.34 mm/month in their Connecticut arch and mini-implant groups, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The non-significant differences found in and among groups were in accordance with the previous studies. [7][8][9] The incisors showed significant root resorptions in both groups. Though there was no difference among groups concerning the resorption amounts of lateral incisors, an inclination was present towards more shortening in MG whereas central incisors actually did show significantly greater reduction values in length.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7][8][9] However in those studies either the root resorption was not evaluated, or the intrusion was not assessed from center of resistance or the observation time was not standardized in groups with the final records taken when the overbite is eliminated. [7][8][9] Thus this study was undertaken to evaluate the intrusion achieved via mini-implants and Connecticut intrusion arches in predesignated time duration with a standardized method of evaluating resorption using paralleling extension cone method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Treatment Effects of Two Intrusive Mechanics: Connecticut Intrusion Arch and Mini-Implant

Gürlen¹,

Aras²

2016

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A AB BS S T TR RA AC CT T O Ob bj je ec ct ti iv ve e: : The aim of this study was to compare the treatment efficiencies and root resorption amounts of two different incisor intrusion mechanics. M Ma at te er ri ia al l a an nd d M Me et th ho od ds s: : Thirty-two patients with deep bite and elongated maxillary incisors were randomly allocated two treatment groups: Connecticut intrusion arch group (CG) or Mini-implant group (MG). In both groups approximately 60 g of force applied between central and lateral incisors. Dentoalveolar effects were studied via cephalograms taken before and after 5 months of intrusion while root resorption was assessed using periapical roentgens. Paired t-test was used to evaluate differences within groups. The changes observed in both groups were compared by using independent t-test. R Re es su ul lt ts s: : While the overbite reduced significantly in both groups (p<0.001), this amount was greater in MG (p<0.01). The center of resistance (CR) of incisors showed significant apical movement (p<0.001) in both groups with greater values observed in MG (P<0.05). The labial tipping and sagittal advancement of the incisor edge was significant in the treatment groups (p<0.001); these changes were greater in MG. Apex of the central incisor displayed significant backwards movement (p<0.05) with no intergroup difference (p>0.05). Incisors in both groups showed significant root resorption (P<0.000) which was significantly greater in MG compared to CG (P<0.05). C Co on nc cl lu us si io on n: : Mini-implants were more efficient in bite-opening. However they also led to more root resorption and labial tipping compared with the Connecticut intrusion arch.K Ke ey y W Wo or rd ds s: : Tooth movement; Connecticut; orthodontic anchorage procedures Ö ÖZ ZE ET T A Am ma aç ç: : Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı iki keser intruzyon mekaniğinin tedavi etkinliği ve kök rezorpsiyonu miktarı yönünden karşılaştırılmasıdır. G Ge er re eç ç v ve e Y Yö ön nt te em ml le er r: : Derin kapanış ve uzamış maksiller kesicilere sahip 32 hasta rastgele iki tedavi grubuna ayrıldı: Connecticut intrüzyon arkı grubu (CG) veya mini-implant grubu (MG). Her iki grupta santral ve lateral kesiciler arasından yaklaşık 60 g kuvvet uygulandı. Dentoalveolar etkiler keser intruzyonundan önce ve 5 ay sonra alınan sefalometriler ile değerlendirilirken kök rezorpsiyonu periapikal filmlerle değerlendirildi. Eşle-ştirilmiş t-testi ile grup içindeki farklar analiz edildi. Her iki gruptaki değişimler bağımsız ttesti ile karşılaştırıldı. B Bu ul lg gu ul la ar r: : Her iki grupta overbite anlamlı miktarda düşerken (p<0.001), bu miktar mini-implant grubunda daha fazla idi (p<0.01). Keserlerin direnç merkezi (CR) miniimplant grubunda daha fazla değerde olmakla birlikte her iki grupta da önemli düzeyde apikale yer değiştirdi (p<0.001). Labial devrilme ve kesici kenarının sagittal ilerlemesi tedavi gruplarında önemli bulunurken (p<0.001), bu değişiklikler miniimplant grubunda daha fazla idi. Santral kesicilerin apeksleri gruplar arası fark olmaksızın...

show abstract

“…[3][4][5][6][7] Decision of treatment depends on miscellaneous factors like an optimal incisor position, incisor display, smile line, upper lip length, and vertical dimension. [5][6][7] For example, maxillary incisor intrusion is recommended for the patients with normal vertical dimension and gummy smiles 8 with over-eruption of incisors that produces anterior deep bites in non-growing patients. 2,[9][10][11][12][13] Traditionally, incisor intrusion performed by anterior bite plate 6 , functional appliances 14, 15 , j-hook headgears 16 , reverse curved arches 17 , step-up/step-down bends 10 , 2x4 appliances like a utility arches 18 or 3-piece intrusion arches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Three-Dimensional Evaluation of the Effects of Different Incisor Intrusion Mechanics to the Permanent Maxillary First Molar Teeth by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Kahraman¹,

Kılıç²,

Dağsuyu³

2017

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aims to evaluate the impacts of the upper incisor teeth intrusion in deepbite patients by two different techniques to the permanent maxillary first molar tooth using the three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in the individuals. Materials and Methods:The population of this study consists of 34 patients with >4 mm overbite and a ≥2 mm gummy smile during post-pubertal period. Patients who underwent intrusion of upper incisor teeth were randomized to receive Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) or miniscrew anchorage intrusion system (MAIS) to compare the impacts on permanent maxillary first molar teeth. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) data obtained before (T1) and after (T2) intrusion were evaluated through three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Intragroup assessment of treatment-related variables were performed via "t-test in dependent samples" and intergroup comparisons were assessed by "t-test in independent samples". Results:In patients who underwent intrusion of upper incisors, permanent maxillary first molar teeth became deviated distally (1.48 mm/7.63 degree) only in CTA group, a statistically significant difference was found between two groups (p<0.05). The distance between resistance centers of maxillary first molar teeth was only increased in CTA group (0.31 mm), which also statistically differed from MAIS group. Conclusion: CTA and MAIS techniques resulted in similar intrusive effects overall at the end of the treatment. While MAIS is recommended when anchorage from posterior region is not desired in patients with deep overbite, we believe that CTA may serve a suitable treatment alternative where miniscrew technique could not be performed.

show abstract

Comparison of the intrusive effects of miniscrews and utility arches

Cited by 41 publications

References 34 publications

Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch

Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch

Comparison of the Treatment Effects of Two Intrusive Mechanics: Connecticut Intrusion Arch and Mini-Implant

A Three-Dimensional Evaluation of the Effects of Different Incisor Intrusion Mechanics to the Permanent Maxillary First Molar Teeth by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About