The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effectiveness of en-masse retraction using midpalatal miniscrews and a modified transpalatal arch: Treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes

  • Lee, Jungkil (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University) ;
  • Miyazawa, Ken (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University) ;
  • Tabuchi, Masako (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University) ;
  • Sato, Takuma (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University) ;
  • Kawaguchi, Misuzu (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University) ;
  • Goto, Shigemi (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aichi-Gakuin University)
  • Received : 2013.05.26
  • Accepted : 2013.09.10
  • Published : 2014.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes between two different anchorage systems used to treat maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and to examine the effectiveness of en-masse retraction using two miniscrews placed in the midpalatal suture. Methods: Fifty-seven patients (9 men, 48 women), who had undergone level anchorage system treatment at Aichi-Gakuin University Dental Hospital (Nagoya, Japan) were divided into two groups according to the method of maxillary posterior anchorage reinforcement: midpalatal miniscrews (25 patients, mean age 22 years) and conventional anchorage (32 patients, mean age 19 years). The en-masse retraction period, overall treatment duration, pre-treatment effective ANB angle, and change in the effective ANB angle were compared with an independent-samples t -test. Results: Compared to the headgear group, the duration of en-masse retraction was longer by approximately 4 months in the miniscrew group (p < 0.001). However, we found no significant difference in the total treatment duration between the groups. Moreover, a greater change in the effective ANB angle was observed in patients treated with miniscrews than in those treated with the conventional method (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The level anchorage system treatment using miniscrews placed in the midpalatal area will allow orthodontists more time to control the anterior teeth during en-masse retraction, without increasing the total treatment duration. Furthermore, it achieves better dentoskeletal control than does the conventional anchorage method, thereby improving the quality of the treatment results.

Keywords

References

  1. Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75:333-9.
  2. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76:493-501.
  3. Braun S, Sjursen RC Jr, Legan HL. On the management of extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:645-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70230-0
  4. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74: 703-10.
  5. Park YC, Chu JH, Choi YJ, Choi NC. Extraction space closure with vacuum-formed splints and miniscrew anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2005;39:76-9.
  6. Kyung SH. A study on the bone thickness of midpalatal suture area for miniscrew insertion. Korean J Orthod 2004;34:63-70.
  7. Kim YH, Yang SM, Kim S, Lee JY, Kim KE, Gianelly AA, et al. Midpalatal miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage: factors affecting clinical success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.036
  8. Lee JS, Kim DH, Park YC, Kyung SH, Kim TK. The efficient use of midpalatal miniscrew implants. Angle Orthod 2004;74:711-4.
  9. Chae JM. A new protocol of Tweed-Merrifield directional force technology with microimplant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:100-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.020
  10. Bae SM, Park HS, Kyung HM, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:298-302.
  11. 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
  12. Beckwith FR, Ackerman RJ Jr, Cobb CM, Tira DE. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:439-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70265-9
  13. Fisher MA, Wenger RM, Hans MG. Pretreatment characteristics associated with orthodontic treatment duration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137:178-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.028
  14. Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129: 230-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.003
  15. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025
  16. Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:615-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.022
  17. Lee J, Miyazawa K, Tabuchi M, Kawaguchi M, Shibata M, Goto S. Midpalatal miniscrews and high-pull headgear for anteroposterior and vertical anchorage control: cephalometric comparisons of treatment changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:238-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.020
  18. Miyazawa K, Kawaguchi M, Tabuchi M, Goto S. Accurate pre-surgical determination for self-drilling miniscrew implant placement using surgical guides and cone-beam computed tomography. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:735-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq012
  19. Root TL. The level anchorage system for correction of orthodontic malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1981;80: 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90174-3
  20. Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70010-8
  21. Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G, Schneider S. Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:378-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81337-X
  22. Slakter MJ, Albino JE, Fox RN, Lewis EA. Reliability and stability of the orthodontic Patient Cooperation Scale. Am J Orthod 1980;78:559-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90306-1
  23. Allan TK, Hodgson EW. The use of personality measurements as a determinant of patient cooperation in an orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod 1968;54:433-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(68)90198-X
  24. Starnbach HK, Kaplan A. Profile of an excellent orthodontic patient. Angle Orthod 1975;45:141-5.
  25. Bien SM. Analysis of the components of force used to effect distal movement of teeth. Am J Orthod 1951;37:508-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(51)90071-1
  26. Hanes RA. Bony profile changes resulting from cervical traction compared with those resulting from intermaxillary elastics. Am J Orthod 1959;45:353-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(59)90161-7
  27. Meikle MC. The dentomaxillary complex and overjet correction in Class II, division 1 malocclusion: objectives of skeletal and alveolar remodeling. Am J Orthod 1980;77:184-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90006-8
  28. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edge-wise arch in the treatment of malocclusions: II. Angle Orthod 1941;11:12-67.
  29. Kocadereli I. The effect of first premolar extraction on vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:41-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70301-X

Cited by

  1. Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics vol.86, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/050615-306.1
  2. Orthodontic tunnel miniscrews with and without TiO2 nanotube arrays as a drug-delivery system: In vivo study vol.27, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3233/bme-161597
  3. Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.87, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/021216-120.1
  4. Ribbon-wise customized lingual appliance and orthodontic anchor screw for the treatment of skeletal high-angle maxillary protrusion without bowing effect vol.88, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/072717-498.1
  5. Evaluation of treatment outcomes of en masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices in comparison with two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with dentoalveolar prot vol.9, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_661_18
  6. Management of Cervically Fractured Central Incisors: A Multidisciplinary Approach vol.12, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010238
  7. Optimal sites for orthodontic anchor screw placement using panoramic images: risk of maxillary sinus perforation and contact with adjacent tooth roots during screw placement vol.22, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-021-00393-1