Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2012.42.6.280

Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage  

Park, Heon-Mook (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University)
Kim, Byoung-Ho (Smile Future Dental Clinic)
Yang, Il-Hyung (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University)
Baek, Seung-Hak (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.42, no.6, 2012 , pp. 280-290 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of conventional and orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage on tooth movement and arch-dimension changes in the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 (CII div.1) patients. Methods: CII div.1 patients treated with extraction of the maxillary first and mandibular second premolars and sliding mechanics were allotted to conventional anchorage group (CA, n = 12) or OMI anchorage group (OA, n = 12). Pre- and post-treatment three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed using the best-fit method. Linear, angular, and arch-dimension variables were measured with software program. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed for statistical analysis. Results: Compared to the CA group, the OMI group showed more backward movement of the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine (MXCI, MXLI, MXC, respectively; 1.6 mm, p < 0.001; 0.9 mm, p < 0.05; 1.2 mm, p < 0.001); more intrusion of the MXCI and MXC (1.3 mm, 0.5 mm, all p < 0.01); less forward movement of the maxillary second premolar, first, and second molars (MXP2, MXM1, MXM2, respectively; all 1.0 mm, all p < 0.05); less contraction of the MXP2 and MXM1 (0.7 mm, p < 0.05; 0.9 mm, p < 0.001); less mesial-in rotation of the MXM1 and MXM2 ($2.6^{\circ}$, $2.5^{\circ}$, all p < 0.05); and less decrease of the inter-MXP2, MXM1, and MXM2 widths (1.8 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, all p < 0.05). Conclusions: In treatment of CII div.1 malocclusion, OA provided better anchorage and less arch-dimension change in the maxillary posterior teeth than CA during en-masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth.
Keywords
Three-dimensional analysis; Tooth movement; Arch dimension change; Class II division 1 malocclusion; Conventional anchorage; Mini-implant anchorage;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Nanda R. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79: 240-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:803-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Koh SA, Im WH, Park SH, Chun YS. Comparison of finite element analysis of the closing patterns between first and second premolar extraction spaces. Korean J Orthod 2007;37:407-20.
4 Ong HB, Woods MG. An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of maxillary first and second premolar extraction effects. Angle Orthod 2001;71:90-102.
5 Redmond WR. Digital models: a new diagnostic tool. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:386-7.
6 Cha BK, Lee JY, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Yoshida N. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:325-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Threedimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:636-45.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Cho MY, Choi JH, Lee SP, Baek SH. Three-dimensional analysis of the tooth movement and arch dimension changes in Class I malocclusions treated with first premolar extractions: a guideline for virtual treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:747-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Peavy DC Jr, Kendrick GS. The effects of tooth movement on the palatine rugae. J Prosthet Dent 1967;18:536-42.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Hoggan BR, Sadowsky C. The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:482-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Christou P, Kiliaridis S. Vertical growth-related changes in the positions of palatal rugae and maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:81-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296-309.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Creekmore TD. Where teeth should be positioned in the face and jaws and how to get them there. J Clin Orthod 1997;31:586-608.
15 Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:99-106.   DOI   ScienceOn