Cortical bone remodeling/tooth movement ratio during maxillary incisor retraction with tip versus torque movements

Vardimon, Alexander D.; Oren, Eyal; Ben-Bassat, Yocheved

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70172-6

Cited by 90 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,28 However, many investigators have suggested that excessive labial or lingual movement of maxillary and mandibular incisors should be avoided to prevent irreversible bone loss, which leaves the tooth with less bone support. 11,29,30 Combined with the results of this study, extreme orthodontic movement should be reconsidered according to the patient's anatomic limits and periodontal health, particularly in skeletal Class III adult patients. Further studies should address the association of reduced bone levels with predisposing factors and mechanical factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Alveolar Bone Loss around Incisors in Surgical Skeletal Class III Patients

Kim

Park

Kook

2009

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the vertical alveolar bone levels and alveolar bone thickness around the maxillary and mandibular central incisors in surgically treated skeletal Class III malocclusion patients. Materials and Methods:The study sample comprised 20 Korean patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion with anterior crossbite and openbite (9 male, 11 female, mean ages 24.1). Threedimensional cone beam computed tomography images were taken at least 1 month before the orthognathic surgery, and sagittal slices chosen at the labio-lingually widest point of the maxillary and mandibular right central incisor were evaluated. Measurement of the amount of vertical alveolar bone levels and alveolar bone thickness of the labial and lingual plate at the root apex was made using the SimPlant Pro 12.0 program. Results:The mandibular incisors showed reduced vertical alveolar bone levels than the maxillary incisors, especially on the lingual side. The alveolar bone thickness was significantly greater on the lingual side in the maxillary incisors, whereas the mandibular incisors exhibited an opposite result (P Ͻ .05). The percentage of vertical bone loss to root length showed a statistically significant difference between the upper labial and lower labial alveolar bone and also between the upper lingual and lower lingual alveolar bone, showing more bone loss in the lower incisors (P Ͻ .001). Conclusions:The hypothesis is rejected. For the skeletal Class III patients undergoing orthognathic surgery, special care should be taken to prevent or not aggravate preexisting alveolar bone loss in the anterior teeth, especially in the mandible. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:676-682.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Alveolar Bone Loss around Incisors in Surgical Skeletal Class III Patients

Kim

Park

Kook

2009

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contact of tooth roots with the cortical plate has been addressed as a contributor to root resorption, [12][13][14]16 result in delayed tooth movement, 12 and may also cause perforation and dehiscence of the cortical plate. 6,9,10,12,15 In this context, it is interesting to note that the incidence of orthodontic root resorption is by far more frequent in the maxillary central incisors, even with their larger tooth dimensions, than in the lateral incisors. 14,35 Considering the morphologic dimensions of the central incisor roots and the incisive canal, the posterior-median aspect of the apical third (L1 or L2 levels) of the roots rather than the root apex per se is most likely to approximate with the canal following maxillary anterior retraction and root movement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6][7][8][9][10] Ackerman and Proffit introduced the concept of the "envelope of discrepancy," which graphically shows the extent of changes possible with orthodontic tooth movement alone, with orthopedic or functional appliance therapy for growth modification, and with orthognathic surgery in combination with orthodontic treatment. 7,11 Accordingly, it is traditionally thought that the amount of changes possible for the maxillary incisors with orthodontic treatment alone are approximately 7, 2, 4, and 2 mm for retraction, protraction, extrusion, and intrusion, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphologic evaluation of the incisive canal and its proximity to the maxillary central incisors using computed tomography images

Cho

Kim

Choi

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the morphologic features and the relative position of the incisive canal with regard to the maxillary incisor roots using computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Morphologic evaluation of the incisive canal and its proximity to the maxillary central incisors were measured using CT images of 38 adults with skeletal and dental class I normal occlusion. Linear measurements were performed on the axial cross-sectional images corresponding to three vertical levels, the palatal opening of the incisive canal (L1), midlevel between the opening level and the root apex of the maxillary central incisors (L2), and the root apex of the maxillary central incisors (L3). Results: The percentage of subjects with an incisive canal width greater than the interroot distance of the central incisors was 86.8% and 63.2% at levels L1 and L2, respectively. The anteroposterior distance between the maxillary incisor roots and the boarder of the incisive canal was approximately 5-6 mm at levels L1 and L2. Conclusion: The anteroposterior distance between the maxillary central incisor roots and the incisive canal was approximately 5-6 mm. More than 60% of the subjects had an incisive canal width greater than the interroot distance. Evaluation of the proximity of the incisive canal to the maxillary incisors, along with its dimensional characteristics, may be helpful when a considerable amount of maxillary retraction is planned. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:571-576.)

show abstract

“…4 During orthodontic treatment, limiting incisor movement in the bone structure is believed to be essential for achieving better results, stability, and periodontal health, as well as for avoiding root resorption. 5,6 A thin alveolus can be encountered in any skeletal type but is most frequently found in patients with a long lower face height and a skeletal Class III malocclusion. 4,7 Some researchers have shown that, in the case of a narrow and high symphysis, pronounced sagittal or anteroposterior incisor movements during routine orthodontic treatment might be critical and lead to progressive bone loss of the lingual and labial cortical plates because of the anatomic limits set by the cortical plates of the alveolus at the level of the incisor apices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%