OBJECTIVE: To compare the dentofacial effects of mandibular incisor intrusion using mini-implants with those of a conventional incisor intrusion mechanic, the utility arch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six deep-bite patients were enrolled to one of the two groups. In group 1 the mandibular incisors were intruded using a 0.16 × 0.22-inch stainless-steel segmental wire connected to two mini-implants. In group 2 the mandibular incisor intrusion was performed using a conventional utility arch. Conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at pretreatment and at the end of intrusion. Thirty landmarks were identified to measure 23 linear and 20 angular measurements. Intragroup comparisons were made using a paired t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Intergroup comparisons were made using a Student's t-test or a Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The duration of intrusion was 5 months for group 1 and 4 months for group 2. In the implant group, the mean amount of change was 0.4 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.3 mm/mo for the center of resistance, and in the utility arch group, the mean amount of change was 0.25 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.2 mm/mo for the center of resistance. The mandibular incisors showed an average protrusion of 7° in the implant group and 8° in the utility arch group. CONCLUSIONS: Incisor intrusion that was achieved using an implant-supported segmented archwire was no different than the movement achieved with a conventional intrusion utility arch. The only difference between the two methods was in the molar movement.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the dentofacial effects of mandibular incisor intrusion using mini-implants with those of a conventional incisor intrusion mechanic, the utility arch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six deep-bite patients were enrolled to one of the two groups. In group 1 the mandibular incisors were intruded using a 0.16 × 0.22-inch stainless-steel segmental wire connected to two mini-implants. In group 2 the mandibular incisor intrusion was performed using a conventional utility arch. Conventional lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at pretreatment and at the end of intrusion. Thirty landmarks were identified to measure 23 linear and 20 angular measurements. Intragroup comparisons were made using a paired t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Intergroup comparisons were made using a Student's t-test or a Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The duration of intrusion was 5 months for group 1 and 4 months for group 2. In the implant group, the mean amount of change was 0.4 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.3 mm/mo for the center of resistance, and in the utility arch group, the mean amount of change was 0.25 mm/mo for the incisor tip and 0.2 mm/mo for the center of resistance. The mandibular incisors showed an average protrusion of 7° in the implant group and 8° in the utility arch group. CONCLUSIONS: Incisor intrusion that was achieved using an implant-supported segmented archwire was no different than the movement achieved with a conventional intrusion utility arch. The only difference between the two methods was in the molar movement.
Authors: Rami Sosly; Hisham Mohammed; Mumen Z Rizk; Eias Jamous; Ahmad G Qaisi; David R Bearn Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 2.079