Periodontal changes following molar intrusion with miniscrews

Abstract

Background:With the introduction of skeletal anchorage system, recently it is possible to successfully intrude molar teeth. On the other hand, there have been concerns about periodontal changes associated with intrusion and there are few studies on this topic, especially for posterior teeth.Materials and Methods:Ten female patients were enrolled in this study. Maxillary molar intrusion was achieved by inserting two miniscrews and a 17 × 25 titanium molybdenum alloy spring. Crestal height changes were evaluated at three intervals including: Baseline (T0), end of active treatment (T1) and 6 months after retention (T2). Other variables including probing depth, gingival recession, attachment level and bleeding on probing were evaluated by clinical measurements in the three above mentioned intervals. One-sample Kolmogrov-Smirnov test ascertained the normality of the data. For all patients, the changes in tooth position and crestal height were evaluated using one-sample t-test. (P < 0.05)Results:Supra-erupted molars were successfully intruded a mean of 2.1 ± 0.9 mm during active treatment (T0-T1). A mean bone resorption of 0.9 ± 0.9 mm in mesial crest and 1 ± 0.8 mm in distal crest had occurred in total treatment (T0-T2). A mean of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm bone was deposited on mesial crest during the retention period (T1-T2) following tooth relapse. On average, 0.8 ± 0.4 mm attachment gain was obtained. Gingival margin coronalized a mean of 0.8 ± 0.6 mm throughout the entire treatment. Probing depth showed no significant change during treatment.Conclusion:Within the limitations of this study, these results suggest that not only periodontal status was not negatively affected by intrusion, but also there were signs of periodontal improvement including attachment gain and shortening of clinical crown height.

Thank Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review

“…Both studies assessed different biological side effects of intrusion. Ma Dan et al 17 reported no significant difference in probing depth and width of the keratinized gingiva between the TAD and utility arch groups, this is in agreement with Bayani et al 27 that found no significant change of probing depth during intrusion with miniscrew. In fact, a clinical attachment gain and shortening of clinical crown height has been observed.…”

Repositioning of Overerupted Upper Molar for Facilitating Lower Implant Placement with Miniscrews

“…9 In a study conducted by Bayani S, et al in 2015, they stated that the maxillary molar intrusion treatment with miniscrew showed no significant probing depth throughout the treatment. 10 However the Ghanbari, et al study showed that periodontal health was affected by the miniscrews as the plaque accumulation increased. 11 Inadequate personal oral hygiene is known as one of the major risk factors for periodontitis.…”

Histological analysis on tissues around orthodontically intruded maxillary molars using temporary anchorage devices: A case report

“…In our molar intrusion case, the alveolar bone and the gingiva did not follow the tooth movement. Few reports are available on clinical periodontal changes after molar intrusion, 12 , 18 , 20 including histological findings from animal experiments. 15 , 16 , 19 , 22 According to Kanzaki et al, 16 during molar intrusion with skeletal anchorage devices, pressure from supra-alveolar fibers induces alveolar bone resorption and remodeling.…”

“…4 - 11 The mean amount of molar intrusion with TADs has been clarified and ranges from 2.1 mm to 4 mm. 4 - 6 , 10 , 12 , 13 For extreme supra-erupted second molars, intrusion can reach 8 mm. 14…”