SPACE CLOSURE IN BIALVEOLAR DENTAL PROTRUSION CASES - A COMPARATIVE COMBINATION METHOD

Chaitanya N; Arshad Am; Praveen Krk; Prashant C; Sandeep Bailwad; Navin P; Balaji O; Yogesh C; Saurab K

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i7.17504

Authors

Chaitanya N Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Arshad Am Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Praveen Krk Department of Orthodontics , Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Kota Damansara, Malaysia.
Prashant C Department of Orthodontics , Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Kota Damansara, Malaysia.
Sandeep Bailwad Department of Pedodontics, MAHSA, Malaysia.
Navin P Department of Pharmacology, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Balaji O Department of Pharmacology, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Yogesh C Department of Dentistry, MCODS, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Saurab K Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i7.17504

Keywords:

Anchorage redefined, Bimaxillary protrusion, Segmental retraction, Temporary anchorage devices

Abstract

Objective: To measure and compare the amount, rate and anchor loss after the en masse retraction of all anteriors with titanium mini-implant anchorage and conventional molar anchorage.

Methods: This comparative clinical study sample comprised 12 patients (10 females, 2 males; mean age between 16 and 22 years). The implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Preretraction and post retraction lateral cephalograms were taken for measuring the amount, rate and anchor loss after the retraction.

Results: Mean en masse retraction amounts, the rate of movement per month, and horizontal and vertical anchor loss at the maxillary implant site were 4.79 mm, 0.58 mm, 0 mm, and 0 mm, respectively. In the mandible, on implant sides were 4.66 mm, 0.56 mm, 0 mm, and 0 mm. Mean en masse retraction amounts, the rate of movement per month, and horizontal and vertical anchor loss at the maxillary conventional molar anchor side were 4.08 mm, 0.49 mm, 2.91 mm, and 1.66 mm. In the mandible, on conventional anchor sides were 3.54 mm, 0.48 mm, 3.12 mm, and 1.95 mm.

Conclusion: En masse retraction had a faster rate of space closure with mini-implants as anchor units than the conventional molar anchorage preparation.

Â

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans - An esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104(2):240-50.

Dandajena TC, Nanda RS. Bialveolar protrusion in a Zimbabwean sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(2):133-7.

Carter NE, Slattery DA. Bimaxillary proclination in patients of Afro- Caribbean origin. Br J Orthod 1988;15(3):175-84.

Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 1899;41(3):248-64.

Profitt WR. Text Book of Contemporary Orthodontics, Reprint. 4th ed.. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Elsevier; 2007. p. 343.

Cranin AN, Rabkin MF, Garfinkel L. A statistical evaluation of 952 endosteal implants in humans. J Am Dent Assoc 1977;94(2):315-20.

Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J Orthod 1982;82(5):361-78.

Guyman GW, Kokich VG, Oswald RJ. Ankylosed teeth as abutments for palatal expansion in the rhesus monkey. Am J Orthod 1980;77(5):486-99.

Gray JB, Steen ME, King GJ, Clark AE. Studies on the efficacy of implants as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod 1983;83(4):311-7.

Roberts WE, Smith RK, Zilberman Y, Mozsary PG, Smith RS. Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthod 1984;86(2):95-111.

Bernstein L. Edward H. Angle versus Calvin S. Case: Extraction versus nonextraction. Part I. Historical revisionism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(5):464-70.

Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95(3):220-30.

Kusnoto J, Kusnoto H. The effect of anterior tooth retraction on lip position of orthodontically treated adult Indonesians. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120(3):304-7.

Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91(5):385-94.

Gruner W, Karlsruhe, Neulingen TL. TomasÂ® Insertion Manual. FDA Approved. Ispringen: Dentaurum; 2008.

Legan HL, Burstone CJ. Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1980;38(10):744-51.

Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1983;17(4):266-9.

Cheung LK, Zhang Q, Wong MC, Wong LL. Stability consideration for internal maxillary distractors. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31(3):142-8.

Tengvall P, Skoglund B, Askendal A, Aspenberg P. Surface immobilized bisphosphonate improves stainless-steel screw fixation in rats. Biomaterials 2004;25(11):2133-8.

Gosain AK, Song L, Corrao MA, Pintar FA. Biomechanical evaluation of titanium, biodegradable plate and screw, and cyanoacrylate glue fixation systems in craniofacial surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;101(3):582-91.

You ZH, Bell WH, Schneiderman ED, Ashman RB. Biomechanical properties of small bone screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52(12):1293-302.

Gantous A, Phillips JH. The effects of varying pilot hole size on the holding power of miniscrews and microscrews. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;95(7):1165-9.

Crismani AG, Bertl MH, Celar AG, Bantleon HP, Burstone CJ. Miniscrews in orthodontic treatment: Review and analysis of published clinical trials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(1):108-13.

Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):30-5.

Paulson RC, Speidel TM, Isaacson RJ. A laminagraphic study of cuspid retraction versus molar anchorage loss. Angle Orthod 1970;40(1):20-7.

Sonis AL, Van der Plas E, Gianelly A. A comparison of elastomeric auxiliaries versus elastic thread on premolar extraction site closure: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod 1986;89(1):73-8.

Dixon V, Read MJ, Oâ€™Brien KD, Worthington HV, Mandall NA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod 2002;29(1):31-6.

Boester CH, Johnston LE. A clinical investigation of the concepts of differential and optimal force in canine retraction. Angle Orthod 1974;44(2):113-9.