Intrusion anchorage potential of teeth versus rigid endosseous implants: A clinical and radiographic evaluation

Southard, Thomas E.; Buckley, Michael; Spivey, James D.; Krizan, K. E.; Casko, John S.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70125-7

Cited by 47 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The intrusion of posterior teeth, using skeletal anchorage was first shown to be possible by Southard et al [18] in mongrel dogs, using osseointegrated implants. With the introduction of miniscrews Ohmae et al [19] subsequently demonstrated the possibility of using miniscrews for the intrusion of mandibular third premolar teeth in beagle dogs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The short-term skeleto-dental effects of a new spring for the intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth in open bite patients

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe technology surrounding temporary skeletal anchorage devices has improved in leaps and bounds. However, no specific auxiliary exists for the intrusion of molars in conjunction with these devices and currently clinicians are forced to make do with available force delivery materials. A new intrusion auxiliary, the Sydney Intrusion Spring (SIS), was designed to facilitate intrusion without frequent need for reactivation or tissue irritation.MethodsThe subjects consisted of 16 adolescent patients (12 females and 4 males) with an average age of 13.1 years (range 12.2 to 14.3 years). All patients were in the permanent dentition with an anterior open bite of ≥2 mm. Four self-drilling miniscrews were placed into the posterior maxillary buccal alveolar bone. The intrusion appliance consisted of a bonded acrylic appliance and the SIS, activated to produce an initial intrusive force of 500 g. Cone beam computed tomograms were taken after miniscrew placement and at the end of active intrusion. Rendered lateral cephalograms were produced and measurements were taken and compared.ResultsAll study objectives were achieved in 4.91 months (range 2.5 to 7.75 months). The mean molar intrusion was 2.9 ± 0.8 mm (P < .001), resulting in over bite increase of 3.0 ± 1.5 mm (P < .001). The intrusion led to a 2.6° ± 1.3° (P < .001) clockwise occlusal plane rotation and a 1.2° ± 1.3° (P < .01) counter-clockwise rotation of the mandible. Dental measurements showed a significant uprighting and elongation of the incisors. There was no significant extrusion of the lower molars.ConclusionThe SIS is an effective appliance for the intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth, in conjunction with miniscrews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The short-term skeleto-dental effects of a new spring for the intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth in open bite patients

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the results of our study are similar to the ones using mini-implants done by Utility arches 13 used for incisor intrusion creates a force system that tends to elongate the molars. 5,21 In actively growing patients with a good facial pattern, this is not a major problem. However, in nongrowing patients or those with a poor facial pattern (vertical growers), molar extrusion should be avoided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Skeletodental Changes Occurring during Deep Overbite Correction with Mini-Implant Anchorage System and the Utility Arches Reinforced by a Transpalatal Arch

Nayak¹,

Goyal²,

Godhrawala³

et al. 2011

JIOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deep overbite has potentially detrimental effects on mandibular and temporomandibular joint function and periodontal health as well as esthetics. Incisor intrusion can be achieved with various treatment modalities. The most commonly used is the utility arch technique. In mini-implant anchorage system, forces can be applied to produce tooth movement in any direction without detrimental reciprocal forces and does not depend on patient cooperation. Very few studies give a direct comparison between the effects of different types of incisor intrusion mechanics.The aims and objectives of the study were to determine the amount of true incisor intrusion and torque change of the incisors and the molar extrusion attained with mini-implants and utility arch during a 6-month observation period. Fourteen patients with deep bite were selected for the study and were divided equally into the two groups which were treated with utility arch, reinforced with transpalatal arch and miniimplants. Mini-implants were found to be superior as compared to utility arch for intrusion of incisors and there was minimal change of incisor inclination with microimplants. The difference in the extrusion seen is not statistically significant.

show abstract

“…[16][17][18] The magnitude of force applied was the same described by several authors as being secure. 2,5,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Moreover, a 200 g force is considered appropriate to various orthodontic movements and potentially safe. In this study, the handles of two dental mirrors were used to evaluate whether there was absence of implant mobility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term follow-up of dental single implants under immediate orthodontic load

Palagi¹,

Sabrosa²,

Gava³

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the success of osseointegrated implants under immediate prosthetic and orthodontic forces after a follow-up period of at least 2 years. Materials and Methods: The sample included 20 titanium implants which were used as orthodontic and prosthetic anchorage of immediately loaded single-crowns on a total of 13 patients. A 40 N initial torque was considered the minimum for inclusion in the sample. All implants received screwed provisional crowns immediately after surgery. The implants were randomly divided into two groups: the control group (9 implants) and the immediate orthodontic loading group (11 implants). A healing period of 4 months was observed before orthodontic loads were applied to the control group implants. For the immediate orthodontic loading group, orthodontic forces were applied within 24 hours. The maximum orthodontic force applied in both groups was 200 g. After 6 months of orthodontic movement, clinical and radiographic evaluations were obtained. Implants were considered successful when favorable results were obtained in all evaluations. Results: After a 2-year follow-up, the success rates were 90.9% and 88.9%, respectively, in the orthodontic loading group and the control group. Each group had one failure. Conclusion: Shortening the healing period for the application of orthodontic forces did not seem to affect the success of osseointegrated implants used as anchorage. (Angle Orthod. 2010;80:807-811.)

show abstract

Intrusion anchorage potential of teeth versus rigid endosseous implants: A clinical and radiographic evaluation

Cited by 47 publications

References 4 publications

The short-term skeleto-dental effects of a new spring for the intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth in open bite patients

The short-term skeleto-dental effects of a new spring for the intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth in open bite patients

Comparison of Skeletodental Changes Occurring during Deep Overbite Correction with Mini-Implant Anchorage System and the Utility Arches Reinforced by a Transpalatal Arch

Long-term follow-up of dental single implants under immediate orthodontic load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About