Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage
2
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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°, 2.5°, 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.
Abstract
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°, 2.5°, 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.
참고문헌 (15)
- Redmond WR, "Digital models: a new diagnostic tool", J Clin Orthod, 35, pp.386~387 (2001)
- Cha BK, "Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology", Eur J Orthod, 29, pp.325~331 (2007)
- Lai EH, "Threedimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.636~645 (2008)
- Cho MY, "Three-dimensional analysis of the tooth movement and arch dimension changes in Class I malocclusions treated with first premolar extractions: a guideline for virtual treatment planning", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 138, pp.747~757 (2010)
- Peavy DC Jr, "The effects of tooth movement on the palatine rugae", J Prosthet Dent, 18, pp.536~542 (1967)
- Hoggan BR, "The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 119, pp.482~488 (2001)
- Christou P, "Vertical growth-related changes in the positions of palatal rugae and maxillary incisors", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 133, pp.81~86 (2008)
- Andrews LF, "The six keys to normal occlusion", Am J Orthod, 62, pp.296~309 (1972)
- Creekmore TD, "Where teeth should be positioned in the face and jaws and how to get them there", J Clin Orthod, 31, pp.586~608 (1997)
- Ziegler P, "A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 95, pp.99~106 (1989)
- Thiruvenkatachari B, "Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 129, pp.551~554 (2006)
- Upadhyay M, "Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients", Angle Orthod, 79, pp.240~247 (2009)
- Upadhyay M, "Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 134, pp.803~810 (2008)
- 고신애, "상악 제1 및 제2소구치의 발치공간 폐쇄기전에 대한 3차원 유한요소 해석의 비교 연구", 대한치과교정학회지, 37(6), pp.407~420 (2007), 대한치과교정학회
- Ong HB, "An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of maxillary first and second premolar extraction effects", Angle Orthod, 71, pp.90~102 (2001)