THE EFFICIENCY OF SAS USED RETRACTION OF THE ANTERIOR TEETH ON ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT

교정치료시 전치부 후방견인에 이용하는 SAS의 효율성

  • Woo, Soon-Seop (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Jeong, Soon-Tai (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Huh, Young-Sung (Ganaart Dental Clinic) ;
  • Hwang, Kyung-Gyun (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Yoo, Im-Hag (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Shim, Kwang-Sup (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Hanyang University)
  • 우순섭 (한양대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 정순태 (한양대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 허영성 (가나아트 치과) ;
  • 황경균 (한양대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 유임학 (한양대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 심광섭 (한양대학교 의과대학 치과학교실)
  • Published : 2003.08.31

Abstract

The retraction of anterior teeth could be performed more easier by inducing of skeletal anchorage system rather than by conventional method on orthodontic treatment. But, we wonder how effective the system draws well without anchorage loss and draws anterior teeth aside posteriorly, and if the system can reduce the time, in comparison with the anchorage of posterior teeth. For that reason we have studied on the subject of patients, who were required the maximum anchorage on orthodontic treatment and the cases without crowding. The subjects of the experimental group are 35 areas of 20 people who were inserted miniscrews after Mx or Mn 1st premolar extracted. Also, the subjects of the control group are 81 areas of 45 people who were not inserted miniscrews. Compared the anchorage loss of experimental group with control one, we could get the result that the anchorage loss of experimental group is $1.034{\pm}0.891mm$ and control group is $2.790{\pm}1.882mm$(P<0.01). Compared the space closing time of experimental group with control one, we could get the result that the space closing time of experimental group is $369.40{\pm}110.81$days and control group is $406.56{\pm}231.63$days. But the result of comparing space closing time has no significance in statistics. We recognized that the experimental group is more faster than the control group in the canine retraction velocity from the result ; the speed of a experimental group has as much as $0.60{\pm}0.23mm/30days$ while the speed of a control group has $0.44{\pm}0.35mm/30days$(P<0.05). So, we could convince that orthodontic miniscrew is used effectively in the cases required the maximum anchorage.

Keywords

References

  1. 유형석, 유영규, 이장열. Y대학교 치과대학병원 교정과 내원환자의 지역분포와 부정교합 분류에 관한 연구. 대치교정지 1999;2:267-76.
  2. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of for first premolar. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;95:220-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90052-8
  3. 권순용. 골내 고정원을 이용한 교정 치료. 치과 임플란트 2002; 1:123-30.
  4. 배성민, 경희문. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage in orthodontics. KJCO 2002;2:14-9.
  5. 박효상. Micro-implant를 이용한 교정치료. 1판. 서울: 나래출판사. 2001.
  6. Bjork A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption; an implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod 1972;62:339-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90277-1
  7. Bjork A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. J Dent Res 1963;42:400-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345630420014701
  8. Bjork A. Sutural growth of the upper face studied by the implant method. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1964;40:49-65.
  9. Bjork A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55:585-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90036-0
  10. Bjork A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. a synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 1983;5:1-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/5.1.1
  11. Schudy F. Superimposition and structural analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109:180-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70179-8
  12. Isaacson RJ. Superimposition and structural analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109:193-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70180-4
  13. Cangialosi TJ, Moss ML, McAlarney ME, Nirenblatt BD, Yuan M. An evaluation of growth changes and treatment effects in Class Ⅱ, Division 1 malocclusion with conventional roentgenographic cephalometry and finite element method analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;105:153-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70111-3
  14. Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciger S, Ariyurek M. Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2002;122:15-26. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.119804
  15. Isaacson RJ, Worms FW, Speidel TM. Measurement of tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1976;70:290-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90335-3
  16. Luecke PE, Johnston LE. The effect of maxillary first premolar extraction and incisor retraction on mandibular position: Testing the central dogma of “functional orthodontics”. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992;101:4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70075-L
  17. Williams R, Hosila FJ. The effect of different extraction sites upon incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1976;69:388-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90208-6