Literature DB >> 19649577

Comparison of skeletal and conventional anchorage methods in conjunction with pre-operative decompensation of a skeletal class III malocclusion.

Benedict Wilmes1, Gudrun Olthoff, Dieter Drescher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: When treating pronounced dentoalveolar compensation of a skeletal Class III malocclusion, preoperative decompensation frequently requires the extraction of maxillary lateral teeth and retraction of the incisors. In this context, maximum anchorage of the maxillary molars is frequently necessary to attain the significant increase in negative overjet that is desired. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of conventional and skeletal molar anchorage using mini-implants in association with pre-operative decompensation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre-operative decompensation involved the symmetric extraction of two lateral teeth from the maxilla as well as retraction of the front teeth in each of 20 patients with a marked skeletal Class III. The molar anchorage half of the patients received was conventional (transpalatal arch) while the other half were treated with skeletal anchorage via mini-implants inserted in the anterior palate. Study models were prepared and analyzed using a 3D scanner before and after space closure (OrthoProof). We analyzed the bilateral degree of mesial molar migration and change in the transversal dimension (DigiModel software).
RESULTS: All patients demonstrated mesial migration of the upper molars as a response to the load on the anchorage unit. The 4.21 mm (+/- 1.17 mm) anchorage loss associated with conventional anchorage was greater than that of skeletal anchorage in the anterior palate (2.05 mm [+/- 1.39 mm]). We observed a tendency towards transversal expansion in the molar region according to the design and thickness of the transpalatal arch.
CONCLUSIONS: Skeletal molar anchorage proved to be more effective than the conventional anchorage. Hence, skeletal anchorage is preferable, especially when patients are in serious need of preoperative decompensation. The anterior palate has proven to be an advantageous region for insertion in conjunction with the correct mechanics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19649577     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-009-9909-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  28 in total

1.  Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion.

Authors:  H S Park; S M Bae; H M Kyung; J H Sung
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2001-07

2.  Load-related implant reaction of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage.

Authors:  André Büchter; Dirk Wiechmann; Stefan Koerdt; Hans Peter Wiesmann; Josef Piffko; Ulrich Meyer
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.977

3.  Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Benedict Wilmes; Carsten Rademacher; Gudrun Olthoff; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Impact of implant design on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Benedict Wilmes; Stephanie Ottenstreuer; Yu-Yu Su; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Insertion angle impact on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Benedict Wilmes; Yu-Yu Su; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics.

Authors:  P Ziegler; B Ingervall
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage.

Authors:  Eddie Hsiang-Hua Lai; Chung-Chen Jane Yao; Jenny Zwei-Chieng Chang; I Chen; Yi-Jane Chen
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch.

Authors:  Paola Maria Poggio; Cristina Incorvati; Stefano Velo; Aldo Carano
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Clinical suitability of titanium microscrews for orthodontic anchorage-preliminary experiences.

Authors:  Ulrike Fritz; Andreas Ehmer; Peter Diedrich
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.938

10.  Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics.

Authors:  Nir Shpack; Moshe Davidovitch; Ofer Sarne; Narchos Panayi; Alexander D Vardimon
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  3 in total

1.  Expectations, acceptance and preferences of patients in treatment with orthodontic mini-implants: part II: implant removal.

Authors:  Sandra Lehnen; Fraser McDonald; Christoph Bourauel; Andreas Jäger; Martin Baxmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 2.  Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods.

Authors:  Safa Jambi; Tanya Walsh; Jonathan Sandler; Philip E Benson; Richard M Skeggs; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-08-19

Review 3.  Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kathrin Becker; Annika Pliska; Caroline Busch; Benedict Wilmes; Michael Wolf; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2018-10-25
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.