Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지

Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement vs. Orthodontic Mini-implant: Comparison of Posterior Anchorage Loss During the En Masse Retraction of the Upper Anterior Teeth

  • Baek, Seung-Hak (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Ho (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2009.09.29
  • Accepted : 2010.06.16
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022" slot, .019X.025" stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). A total of 11 anchorage variables were measured. Analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in treatment duration and anchorage variables at T0 among the three groups. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly larger retraction of the upper incisor edge (U1E-sag, 9.3mm:7.3mm, P<.05) and less posterior anchorage loss (U6M-sag, 0.7~0.9mm:2mm, P<.05; U6A-sag, 0.5mm:2mm, P<.01) than Group 1. The ratio of retraction amount of the upper incisor edge per 1 of anchorage loss in the upper molar made for the significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (4.6mm:7.0mm, P<.05). Group 3 showed a relatively distal inclination of the upper molar (P<.05) and the intrusion of the upper incisor and first molar (U1E-ver, P<.05; U6F-ver, P<.05) compared to Groups 1 and 2. Although OMI could not shorten the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum posterior anchorage than CAR.

Keywords

References

  1. Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75:333-9.
  2. Baek SH, Kim BH. Determinants of successful treatment of bimaxillary protrusion: orthodontic treatment versus anterior segmental osteotomy. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16:234-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200503000-00009
  3. Lee JK, Chung KR, Baek SH. Treatment outcomes of orthodontic treatment, corticotomy-assisted orthodontic treatment, and anterior segmental osteotomy for bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1027-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000277999.01337.8b
  4. Nanda R. Biomechanics in Clinical Orthodontics. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997. p. 156-61.
  5. Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:763-7.
  6. Park HS, Bae SM, Kyung HM, Sung HM. Microimplant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:417-22.
  7. Bae SM, Park HS, Kyung HM, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:298- 302.
  8. Baek SH, Moon CH, Sung SJ, et al. Orthodontic mini-implant: Various treatment strategy and clinical application. Seoul, Korea: Jeesung Pub. Co.; 2007. p. 216-28.
  9. Moon CH, Lee DG, Lee HS, Im JS, Baek SH. Factors associated with the success rate of orthodontic miniscrews placed in the upper and lower posterior buccal region. Angle Orthod 2008;78:101-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/121706-515.1
  10. Baek SH, Kim BM, Kyung SH, Lim JK, Kim YH. Success rate and risk factors associated with mini-implants reinstalled in the maxilla. Angle Orthod 2008;78:895-901. https://doi.org/10.2319/091207-430.1
  11. Cha BK, Lee YH, Lee NK, Choi DS, Baek SH. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device. Angle Orthod 2008;78:403-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/051607-237.1
  12. Kim JW, Baek SH, Kim TW, Chang YI. Comparison of stability between cylindrical and conical type mini-implants: mechanical and histological properties. Angle Orthod 2008;78:692-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2008)078[0692:COSBCA]2.0.CO;2
  13. Herman RJ, Currier GF, Miyake A. Mini-implant anchorage for maxillary canine retraction: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:228-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.029
  14. Thiruvenkatachari B, Pavithranand A, Rajasigamani K, Kyung HM. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:551-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.014
  15. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. The transition from standard edgewise to preadjusted appliance systems. J Clin Orthod 1989;23:142-53.
  16. Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP. Controlled space closure with a preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:251-60.
  17. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Anchorage control during leveling and aligning with a preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:687-96.
  18. Woods MG. The mechanics of lower incisor intrusion: experiments in nongrowing baboons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:186-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(88)80002-7
  19. Runge ME, Sadowsky C. Class II, division 1 vertical pattern. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:271-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90051-0