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

Abstract

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...

The Effects of Intrusion of Anterior Teeth by Skeletal Anchorage in Deep Bite Patients; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The full text of the remaining 30 studies (21 studies by database search and 9 studies after manual search) were retrieved and analyzed, 5 of them because only the amount of vertical control of teeth during retraction was assessed and 10 of them were excluded because they did not have a mini-screw group. A total of 15 articles were included in our study for systematic review [ 15 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ], and after data extraction, meta-analyses were performed on 14 studies, and for one study [ 42 ], only a systematic review was performed due to differences in outcomes and retainers under review with the rest of the studies.…”

“…Figure 3 and Figure 4 show a summary of the risk of bias in the included studies. For randomized clinical trials, four studies had an unknown risk of bias while the two studies for Gurlen et al and Ma et al [ 37 , 39 ] had a high risk of bias. For the non-randomized studies, all of them were judged to have a moderate risk of bias mostly because of bias due to confounding factors, bias in selection of participants into the study, and bias in selection of the reported results.…”