Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.88

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)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.44, no.2, 2014 , pp. 88-95 More about this Journal
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
Orthodontic mini-implant; Appliances; Diagnosis and treatment planning; Orthodontic treatment;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Slakter MJ, Albino JE, Fox RN, Lewis EA. Reliability and stability of the orthodontic Patient Cooperation Scale. Am J Orthod 1980;78:559-63.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Bien SM. Analysis of the components of force used to effect distal movement of teeth. Am J Orthod 1951;37:508-21.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Hanes RA. Bony profile changes resulting from cervical traction compared with those resulting from intermaxillary elastics. Am J Orthod 1959;45:353-64.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edge-wise arch in the treatment of malocclusions: II. Angle Orthod 1941;11:12-67.
7 Kocadereli I. The effect of first premolar extraction on vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:41-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Fisher MA, Wenger RM, Hans MG. Pretreatment characteristics associated with orthodontic treatment duration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137:178-86.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129: 230-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Lee JS, Kim DH, Park YC, Kyung SH, Kim TK. The efficient use of midpalatal miniscrew implants. Angle Orthod 2004;74:711-4.
14 Chae JM. A new protocol of Tweed-Merrifield directional force technology with microimplant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:100-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Bae SM, Park HS, Kyung HM, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:298-302.
16 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
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Starnbach HK, Kaplan A. Profile of an excellent orthodontic patient. Angle Orthod 1975;45:141-5.
19 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Root TL. The level anchorage system for correction of orthodontic malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1981;80: 395-410.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:15-21.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74: 703-10.
25 Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75:333-9.
26 Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76:493-501.
27 Braun S, Sjursen RC Jr, Legan HL. On the management of extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:645-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 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.
29 Kyung SH. A study on the bone thickness of midpalatal suture area for miniscrew insertion. Korean J Orthod 2004;34:63-70.