• 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.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.339-348
• /
• 2006

Objective: With development of the skeletal anchorage system, orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) assisted on masse sliding retraction has become part of general orthodontic treatment. But compared to the emphasis on successful anchorage preparation, the control of anterior teeth axis has not been emphasized enough. Methods: A 3-D finite element Base model of maxillary dental arch and a Lingual tipping model with lingually inclined anterior teeth were constructed. To evaluate factors influencing the axis of anterior teeth when OMI was used as anchorage, models were simulated with 2 mm or 5 mm retraction hooks and/or by the addition of 4 mm of compensating curve (CC) on the main archwire. The stress distribution on the roots and a 25000 times enlarged axis graph were evaluated. Results: Intrusive component of retraction force directed postero-superiorly from the 2 mm height hook did not reduce the lingual tipping of anterior teeth. When hook height was increased to 5 mm, lateral incisor showed crown-labial and root-lingual torque and uncontrolled tipping of the canine was increased.4 mm of CC added to the main archwire also induced crown-labial and root-lingual torque of the lateral incisor but uncontrolled tipping of the canine was decreased. Lingual tipping model showed very similar results compared with the Base model. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that height of the hook and compensating curve on the main archwire can influence the axis of anterior teeth. These data can be used as guidelines for clinical application.