• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.159-168
• /
• 2012

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate mandibular deformation under clenching and to estimate its effect on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI). Methods: Three finite element models were constructed using computed tomography (CT) images of 3 adults with different mandibular plane angles (A, low; B, average; and C, high). An OMI was placed between #45 and #46 in each model. Mandibular deformation under premolar and molar clenching was simulated. Comparisons were made between peri-orthodontic mini-implant compressive strain (POMI-CSTN) under clenching and orthodontic traction forces (150 g and 200 g). Results: Three models with different mandibular plane angles demonstrated different functional deformation characteristics. The compressive strains around the OMI were distributed mesiodistally rather than occlusogingivally. In model A, the maximum POMI-CSTN under clenching was observed at the mesial aspect of #46 (1,401.75 microstrain [${\mu}E$]), and similar maximum POMI-CSTN was observed under a traction force of 150 g (1,415 ${\mu}E$). Conclusions: The maximum POMI-CSTN developed by clenching failed to exceed the normally allowed compressive cortical bone strains; however, additional orthodontic traction force to the OMI may increase POMI-CSTN to compromise OMI stability.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.242-252
• /
• 2016

Objective: Orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) generate various horizontal and vertical force vectors and moments according to their insertion positions. This study aimed to help select ideal biomechanics during maxillary incisor retraction by varying the length in the anterior retraction hook (ARH) and OMI position. Methods: Two extraction models were constructed to analyze the three-dimentional finite element: a first premolar extraction model (Model 1, M1) and a residual 1-mm space post-extraction model (Model 2, M2). The OMI position was set at a height of 8 mm from the arch wire between the second maxillary premolar and the first molar (low OMI traction) or at a 12-mm height in the mesial second maxillary premolar (high OMI traction). Retraction force vectors of 200 g from the ARH (-1, +1, +3, and +6 mm) at low or high OMI traction were resolved into X-, Y-, and Z-axis components. Results: In M1 (low and high OMI traction) and M2 (low OMI traction), the maxillary incisor tip was extruded, but the apex was intruded, and the occlusal plane was rotated clockwise. Significant intrusion and counter-clockwise rotation in the occlusal plane were observed under high OMI traction and -1 mm ARH in M2. Conclusions: This study observed orthodontic tooth movement according to the OMI position and ARH height, and M2 under high OMI traction with short ARH showed retraction with maxillary incisor intrusion.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.293-304
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study was to investigate the displacement and pattern of stress distribution on periodontal ligaments of maxillary first and second molar, and on orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) surface, according to three different insertion angles to the bone surface of OMI using Dragon helix appliance, which is a newly introduced scissors-bite correcting appliance. OMI were placed between second premolar and first molar with three different insertion angles (45, 60, 90 degrees). Displacement and maximum stress distribution area (MSDA) were analyzed by finite element analysis. When the insertion angle to the alveolar bone surface was 90 degrees, maxillary first and second molar both exhibited MSDA at the palatal root apex. Maxillary first molar did not show any significant displacement, while the second molar exhibited intrusive and palatal displacement. On the OMI, as the insertion angle decreased, the MSDA shifted towards the tip, and the amount of displacement had increased. When the OMI was inserted at a 90 degree angle, anchor loss was minimized and scissors-bite correcting effect was maximized.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2010

This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022" slot, .019X.025" stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). A total of 11 anchorage variables were measured. Analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in treatment duration and anchorage variables at T0 among the three groups. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly larger retraction of the upper incisor edge (U1E-sag, 9.3mm:7.3mm, P<.05) and less posterior anchorage loss (U6M-sag, 0.7~0.9mm:2mm, P<.05; U6A-sag, 0.5mm:2mm, P<.01) than Group 1. The ratio of retraction amount of the upper incisor edge per 1 of anchorage loss in the upper molar made for the significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (4.6mm:7.0mm, P<.05). Group 3 showed a relatively distal inclination of the upper molar (P<.05) and the intrusion of the upper incisor and first molar (U1E-ver, P<.05; U6F-ver, P<.05) compared to Groups 1 and 2. Although OMI could not shorten the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum posterior anchorage than CAR.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.191-199
• /
• 2011

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stress distribution on the orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) surface and periodontal ligament of the maxillary first and second molars as well as the tooth displacement according to the OMI position in the dragon helix appliance during scissors-bite correction. Methods: OMIs were placed at two maxillary positions, between the first and the second premolars (group 1) and between the second premolar and the first molar (group 2). The stress distribution area (SDA) was analyzed by three-dimensional finite element analysis. Results: The maximal SDA of the OMI did not differ between the groups. It was located at the cervical area and palatal root apex of the maxillary first molar in groups 1 and 2, respectively, indicating less tipping in group 2. The minimal SDA was located at the root and furcation area of the maxillary second molar in groups 1 and 2, respectively, indicating greater palatal crown displacement in group 2. Conclusions: Placement of the OMI between the maxillary second premolar and the maxillary first molar to serve as an indirect anchor in the dragon helix appliance minimizes anchorage loss while maximizing the effect on scissors-bite correction.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.218-224
• /
• 2013

Objective: To examine the effect of bite force on the displacement and stress distribution of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the molar region according to placement site, insertion angle, and loading direction. Methods: Five finite element models were created using micro-computed tomography (microCT) images of the maxilla and mandible. OMIs were placed at one maxillary and two mandibular positions: between the maxillary second premolar and first molar, between the mandibular second premolar and first molar, and between the mandibular first and second molars. The OMIs were inserted at angles of $45^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$ to the buccal surface of the cortical bone. A bite force of 25 kg was applied to the 10 occlusal contact points of the second premolar, first molar, and second molar. The loading directions were $0^{\circ}$, $5^{\circ}$, and $10^{\circ}$ to the long axis of the tooth. Results: With regard to placement site, the displacement and stress were greatest for the OMI placed between the mandibular first molar and second molar, and smallest for the OMI placed between the maxillary second premolar and first molar. In the mandibular molar region, the angled OMI showed slightly less displacement than the OMI placed at $90^{\circ}$. The maximum Von Mises stress increased with the inclination of the loading direction. Conclusions: These results suggest that placement of OMIs between the second premolar and first molar at $45^{\circ}$ to the cortical bone reduces the effect of bite force on OMIs.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.280-289
• /
• 2016

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze tooth movement and arch width changes in maxillary dentition following nonextraction treatment with orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage in Class II division 1 malocclusions. Methods: Seventeen adult patients diagnosed with Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated by nonextraction with OMIs as anchorage for distalization of whole maxillary dentition. Three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed with the best-fit method at the pretreatment and post-treatment stages. Linear, angular, and arch width variables were measured using Rapidform 2006 software, and analyzed by the paired t -test. Results: All maxillary teeth showed statistically significant movement posteriorly (p < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the vertical position of the maxillary teeth, except that the second molars were extruded (0.86 mm, p < 0.01). The maxillary first and second molars were rotated distal-in ($4.5^{\circ}$, p < 0.001; $3.0^{\circ}$, p < 0.05, respectively). The intersecond molar width increased slightly (0.1 mm, p > 0.05) and the intercanine, interfirst premolar, intersecond premolar, and interfirst molar widths increased significantly (2.2 mm, p < 0.01; 2.2 mm, p < 0.05; 1.9 mm, p < 0.01; 2.0 mm, p < 0.01; respectively). Conclusions: Nonextraction treatment with OMI anchorage for Class II division 1 malocclusions could retract the whole maxillary dentition to achieve a Class I canine and molar relationship without a change in the vertical position of the teeth; however, the second molars were significantly extruded. Simultaneously, the maxillary arch was shown to be expanded with distal-in rotation of the molars.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.41 no.6
• /
• pp.423-430
• /
• 2011

Objective: To evaluate the extent and aspect of stress to the cortical bone after application of a lateral force to a two-component orthodontic mini-implant (OMI, mini-implant) by using three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: The 3D-finite element models consisted of the maxilla, maxillary first molars, second premolars, and OMIs. The screw part of the OMI had a diameter of 1.8 mm and length of 8.5 mm and was placed between the roots of the upper second premolar and the first molar. The cortical bone thickness was set to 1 mm. The head part of the OMI was available in 3 sizes: 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm. After a 2 N lateral force was applied to the center of the head part, the stress distribution and magnitude were analyzed using FEA. Results: When the head part of the OMI was friction fitted (tapped into place) into the inserted screw part, the stress was uniformly distributed over the surface where the head part was inserted. The extent of the minimum principal stress suggested that the length of the head part was proportionate with the amount of stress to the cortical bone; the stress varied between 10.84 and 15.33 MPa. Conclusions: These results suggest that the stress level at the cortical bone around the OMI does not have a detrimental influence on physiologic bone remodeling.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.6
• /
• pp.326-332
• /
• 2019

Extraction treatment has been used for a long time to treat crowding or lip protrusion patients and still extraction decision is the most difficult and important decision during diagnosis and treatment planning. If the amount of crowidng is severe, premolar extraction is often considered. Because of their location, premolar extractions would seem to allow for the most straightforward relief of crowding and the improvement of soft tissue profile. But patients and their parents often prefer nonextraction approach if possible and such a preference gives us serious question about the boundary of nonextraction treatment. Because Orthodontic Mini-Implant (OMI) become popular these days, distalization of posterior teeth can be obtained easily without patient's compliance. For this reason, many orthodontists are trying to treat crowding patient with nonextraction than before. But sometime, unexpected side effects are observed including unesthetic profile, impaction of second molar and long treatment time. All the tools for space gaining - extraction, arch expansion, molar distalization and interproximal enamel reduction - have their limitations and indications. Possible side effects and limitations should be carefully considered during the treatment planning. Although Korean patients usually require extraction more often than US or European patients, more knowledge about the tools for space gaining would help us to decrease the rate of extraction and the problems during treatment of crowding patients.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.39 no.6
• /
• pp.402-419
• /
• 2009

Successful treatment of the non-growing patient with an open bite of either dental skeletal pattern often presents a difficult challenge. The morphologic pattern in anterior open bite is characterized by longer vertical dimensions, an increase in development of the maxillary posterior dento-alveolar structure and a steep mandibular plane. In such cases, molar intrusion would be a good remedy for treatment. This article reports the successful treatment and retention of two anterior open-bite cases. We used orthodontic mini-implants for treatment and a circumferential retainer with posterior bite block or skeletal fixed retainer for retention. The diagnostic criteria and mechanics for appropriate treatment are discussed. Our results suggest that open bite can be reduced successfully with intrusion of molars using orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) without orthognathic surgery, and that circumferential retainer with posterior bite block and skeletal fixed retainer are effective for retention.