• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.32 no.1 s.90
• /
• pp.9-18
• /
• 2002

The present study hypothesized that the double keyhole looped archwire plays a positive role for the sake of translatory movement and/or controlled tipping of upper 6 anteriors, and secures anchorage control as well. The purposes of the study were to evaluate the changes in lateral cephalograms during orthodontic treatment with DKHLs and to compare the skeletal & dental changes before- & after-treatment. The materials of this study were lateral cephalograms of 20 adult patients with upper dentoalveolar protrusion both in class I and in class II Division1 malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after orthodontic treatment with upper 1st bicuspid extraction and DKHLs. The results were obtained as follows : 1. There were no statistically significant differences in skeletal measurement except SNB and PTFH between before- & after-treatment. The major changes were in dentoalveolar region. 2. After treatment, there were statistically significant decrease in dental measurement except interincisal angle. 3. Both upper & lower lip protrusion was decreased. 4. There were statistically differences in upper anterior crown horizontal & root vertical dimension(7.08 ${\pm}$ 2.14 mm, 2.38 ${\pm}$ 1.15 mm, p<0.01). 5. There were statistically differences in upper posterior dental(both crown & root) horizontal dimension(2.48 ${\pm}$ 0.99 mm, 2.05 ${\pm}$ 0.91 mm, p<0.01).

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.280-290
• /
• 2012

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.