Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion

Superior effect of mini-implant anchorage in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of mini-implant (MI) anchorage versus conventional anchorage for the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on 64 patients with skeletal class II malocclusion. The patients were divided into two groups: 1) 32 patients underwent conventional anchorage, and 2) 32 patients underwent MI anchorage. Cephalometric radiographs were taken pre-treatment, and the data were compared with post-treatment measurements.

RESULTS

The age and gender distribution between the conventional and MI anchorage groups was similar, and the differences were statistically significant. The SNA and SNB angles post-treatment were reduced compared to pre-treatment measurements in both groups. The MI anchorage demonstrated a superior subsidence effect, reducing the level of forward displacement of the first molars in the maxilla. The MI group also exhibited less extrusion of the molars compared to the conventional group. In skeletal class II cases, especially in patients with a high mandibular angle using MI anchorage helped prevent the mandible from rotating counterclockwise, thus improving aesthetics rather than worsening them after treatment. In 75% of the cases in the MI anchorage group, the outcome was assessed as "greatly improved" based on the PAR index.

CONCLUSIONS

MI anchorage was more effective than conventional anchorage. It allows for greater posterior movement and intrusion of the maxillary incisors while maintaining or rotating the mandibular plane counterclockwise.

Friction versus frictionless mechanics during maxillary en-masse retraction in adult patients with Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Extraction space closure is a challenging phase during orthodontic treatment that affects not only the total treatment duration but also the whole treatment outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficiency of friction and frictionless mechanics during en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

TRIAL DESIGN

Two-arm parallel group, single-center randomized clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion were recruited and randomly allocated to two different retraction mechanics. A friction group, using NiTi coil springs and a frictionless group using closing T-loops for en-masse retraction. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. The randomization numbers were secured in opaque sealed envelopes for allocation concealment. Retraction started in all patients following first premolars extraction using miniscrews as a source of indirect anchorage. Activation was done on a monthly basis until complete retraction of anterior segment. The rate of retraction, amount of anchorage loss, the dental, and soft tissue changes were analyzed on digital models and lateral cephalograms taken before retraction and after space closure.

BLINDING

The outcome assessor was blinded through data concealment during assessment.

RESULTS

Two patients were lost to follow up, so 30 patients completed the trial. The rate of anterior segment retraction was 0.88 ± 0.66 mm/month in the frictionless group compared to 0.72 ± 0.36 mm/month in the friction group which was statistically significant. Anchorage loss of 1.18 ± 0.72 mm in the friction group compared to 1.29 ± 0.55 mm in the frictionless group with no significant difference. Comparable dental and soft tissue changes following en-masse retraction were reported in both groups, with no statistically significant difference.

HARM

one patient complained of soft tissue swelling following miniscrew insertion, but the swelling disappeared after one week of using mouth wash.

LIMITATION

The study focused only on the maxillary arch.

CONCLUSION

Both mechanics have successfully achieved the required treatment objectives in patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Frictionless group showed a faster rate of retraction than the friction group, which was statistically but not clinically significant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT03261024.

Comparative Study of Mini-implants versus Standard Implants in Orthodontic Anchorage for Space Closure

Background

In order to obtain satisfactory treatment outcomes, orthodontic space closure frequently requires trustworthy anchoring devices. Because they are easier to install and smaller than regular implants, mini-implants have become a viable option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of regular implants versus mini-implants as orthodontic anchoring devices for closing gaps in a tertiary care context.

Methods

A total of 100 patients who needed space closure were split into two groups at random and given regular implants (group B, n = 50) or mini-implants (group A, n = 50). The rate of space closure, anchoring loss, and patient pain were measured using visual analog scales as the primary end measures. Resonance frequency analysis was used to assess implant stability. Based on implant survival and the lack of peri-implant problems, success rates were calculated.

Findings

Mini-implants showed much lower rates of patient pain (P < 0.001) and anchoring loss (P < 0.05) than normal implants; however, they did show comparable rates of space closure (P = 0.42). In addition, mini-implants had comparable success rates (P = 0.78) and greater implant stability (P < 0.01) when compared to normal implants.

Conclusion

In conclusion, mini-implants have benefits in anchorage preservation, patient comfort, and implant stability over regular implants when used as orthodontic anchoring devices for space closure. They also offer equivalent effectiveness. These results provide credence to the use of mini-implants as practical substitutes in orthodontic practice.

Quantitative evaluation of vertical control in orthodontic camouflage treatment for skeletal class II with hyperdivergent facial type

BACKGROUND

In this study, we sought to quantify the influence of vertical control assisted by a temporary anchorage device (TAD) on orthodontic treatment efficacy for skeletal class II patients with a hyperdivergent facial type and probe into the critical factors of profile improvement.

METHODS

A total of 36 adult patients with skeletal class II and a hyperdivergent facial type were included in this retrospective case-control study. To exclude the effect of sagittal anchorage reinforcement, the patients were divided into two groups: a maxillary maximum anchorage (MMA) group (N = 17), in which TADs were only used to help with anterior tooth retraction, and the MMA with vertical control (MMA + VC) group (N = 19), for which TADs were also used to intrude the maxillary molars and incisors. The treatment outcome was evaluated using dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue-related parameters via a cephalometric analysis and cast superimposition.

RESULTS

A significant decrease in ANB (P < 0.05 for both groups), the retraction and uprighting of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, and the retraction of protruded upper and lower lips were observed in both groups. Moreover, a significant intrusion of the maxillary molars was observed via the cephalometric analysis (- 1.56 ± 1.52 mm, P < 0.05) and cast superimposition (- 2.25 ± 1.03 mm, P < 0.05) of the MMA + VC group but not the MMA group, which resulted in a remarkable decrease in the mandibular plane angle (- 1.82 ± 1.38°, P < 0.05). The Z angle (15.25 ± 5.30°, P < 0.05) and Chin thickness (- 0.97 ± 0.45°, P < 0.05) also improved dramatically in the MMA + VC group, indicating a better profile and a relaxed mentalis. Multivariate regression showed that the improvement in the soft tissue was closely related to the counterclockwise rotation of the mandible plane (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

TAD-assisted vertical control can achieve intrusion of approximately 2 mm for the upper first molars and induce mandibular counterclockwise rotation of approximately 1.8°. Moreover, it is especially important for patients without sufficient retraction of the upper incisors or a satisfactory chin shape.

Mini-Screw-Assisted Orthodontic Retraction of Class I Malocclusion in a Bimaxillary Protrusion Patient Using Sliding Mechanics: A Case Report

A condition known as bimaxillary protrusion occurs when the front teeth protrude due to the forward positioning of the lower and upper jaws. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) are utilized to provide anchorage and facilitate the controlled retraction of maxillary and mandibular protruding teeth, helping to correct the patient's bite and facial aesthetics. A 27-year-old female with bimaxillary protrusion reported to the Department of Orthodontics. On examination, the facial profile of the patient was convex. The clinical FMA was high. With a deep mentolabial sulcus and an acute nasolabial angle, lips were potentially competent. An intraoral examination revealed proclined incisors with spacing in the maxillary arch and proclined anterior teeth in the mandibular arch. Space closure was done using sliding mechanics with direct anchorage from a mini-screw after the extraction of all four first premolars. There was a significant improvement in the patient's profile posttreatment.

Comparison of treatment effects during en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth placed using mini-implants placed at infrazygomatic crest and interradicular sites: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this prospective study was to examine the efficacy of posterior interradicular and infrazygomatic crest mini-implants for en-masse anterior retraction.

METHODS

The 22 patients were divided into two groups. In group 1 (IZC n = 11), mini-implants were placed in the infrazygomatic crests and in group 2 (IR, n = 11), mini-implants were placed in the molar-premolar interradicular sites. Soft tissue, skeletal, and dental treatment effects between two groups were compared using lateral cephalometric measurements.

RESULTS

The average angle between the cranial base and A point was 1.01 degrees (P = .004), and the linear distance between the upper incisor and A point was 2.67 to 5.2 millimetres (P = .00). In IZC group the maxillary incisor to the palatal plane moved upward by a mean of -5.20 mm (P = .059), whereas in IR group the incisor movement changed by -2.67 mm (P = .068). There was no significant difference between groups IZC and IR while comparing overall treatment changes on upper incisor position change, angle, and overjet.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-implants placed in between the molar and premolar as well as the infrazygomatic crest can withstand the deepening of the bite during retraction. Mini-implants in IZC are capable of causing intrusion of the anterior teeth and preventing intrusion of the molars, thereby providing absolute anchoring in all planes. Placement of the mini-implants in the infrazygomatic crest resulted in more linear retraction.

Vertical changes in the hard tissues after space closure by miniscrew sliding mechanics: a three-dimensional modality analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate vertical changes in the maxillary central incisor and the maxillary first molar, along with alterations in the mandibular plane angle during space closure using miniscrew sliding mechanics.

METHODS

Twenty adult patients treated at Peking University Hospital of Stomatology between 2008 and 2013 were included. Digital dental models and craniofacial cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained at the start of treatment (T0) and immediately after space closure (T1). Stable miniscrews were used for superimposing maxillary digital dental models (T0 and T1), and vertical changes in the maxillary first molar and the maxillary central incisor were measured. Three-dimensional changes in the mandibular plane were assessed through CBCT superimposition.

RESULTS

The maxillary central incisor exhibited an average extrusion of 2.56 ± 0.18 mm, while the maxillary first molar showed an average intrusion of 1.25 ± 1.11 mm with a distal movement of 0.97 ± 0.99 mm. Additionally, the mandibular plane angle decreased by an average of 0.83 ± 1.65°. All three indices exhibited statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

During space closure using the miniscrew sliding technique, significant changes occurred in both the sagittal and vertical dimensions of the upper dentition. This included extrusion of the maxillary central incisors, intrusion of the maxillary first molars, and a slight counterclockwise rotation of the mandibular plane.

Rate and anchorage loss during en-masse retraction between friction and frictionless mechanics: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare rate and anchorage loss during en-masse retraction of anterior maxillary teeth between friction mechanics (FM) and frictionless mechanics (FLM).

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty-eight patients requiring en-masse retraction of protruded anterior maxillary teeth were randomly allocated into FM and FLM groups.

METHODS

En-masse retraction with sliding mechanics (FM) using an elastomeric chain was compared with continuous mushroom loop archwire mechanics (FLM). Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and immediately after retraction (T2). The primary outcome was the rate of en-masse retraction. Anchorage loss was the secondary outcome. Intergroup comparison was performed using an independent t test (P < .05).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Thirty-six patients completed the trial. Two patients were lost to follow-up in the FLM group. The rate of en-masse retraction did not differ significantly (P = .625) between FM (0.7 mm/mo) and FLM (0.8 mm/mo) groups. The intragroup comparison showed significant anchorage loss in FM (2.28 mm) and FLM (1.13 mm) groups; however, the intergroup comparison showed no statistically significant difference (P = .093). Maxillary first molar showed a statistically significant change in angulation between the two mechanic groups (P < .001). Vertical movement of the maxillary incisor and first molar showed no significant difference between FM and FLM groups (P = .143, P = .546, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of en-masse retraction and anchorage loss was comparable between the FM and FLM groups. Significant anchorage loss was seen with both mechanics. The result suggests that both the mechanic group require external reinforcement to prevent anchorage loss.

Skeletal Anchorage Augmentation in Extraction/Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Study

AIM

To evaluate and compare skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters by therapeutic extraction of first premolar and nonextraction distalization of maxillary and mandibular arches in bimaxillary proclination using the skeletal anchorage system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

About 40 orthodontic patients undergoing extraction or nonextraction treatment are enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. Participants are randomly assigned to either the extraction or nonextraction group and receive treatment augmented with skeletal anchorage. Mini implants were placed in the extraction group for retraction and infra-zygomatic crest (IZC) and buccal shelf screws were placed in the nonextraction group for distalization.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Comparison between the ages of the patients among both Groups showed no significant difference. A significant difference is observed in dental and soft tissue parameters before and after the treatment in group A, whereas skeletal parameters also showed significant changes along with dental and soft tissue parameters in group B.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant change in the position of incisors by retraction and facial profile improves gradually in group A while for group B, a marked change in lower facial height was even seen. On comparing both the groups, a highly significant difference can be seen with respect to the amount of incisor retraction and change in molar inclination. The time taken for retraction of incisors is less in comparison to distalization.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With this, we can easily avoid premolar extraction, and in cases of impacted third molars distalization as when indicated can be helpful as a part of the nonextraction treatment plan.

Effectiveness of micro-implant in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment in class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of micro-implant (MI) and conventional anchorage (CA) in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biology Medicine (CBM), and other sources, from inception to December 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted. A meta-analysis concerning change of mandibular plane, vertical change of upper and lower molar, change of occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 10,669 records were identified in the database search, and 19 studies (10 RCTs and 9 CCTs) were included in the final analysis. Compared with CA, MI significantly decreased mandibular plane angle and intruded upper molars. No significant difference was found in vertical change of lower molars, occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile.

CONCLUSION

MI seems to be more effective than CA in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

MI should be given priority when considering the vertical control of class II patients, which is beneficial to the counterclockwise rotation of mandible or at least prevention of deterioration of the profile.

A novel biomechanical system to intrude the upper incisors and control overbite: Posterior miniscrew-assisted lever arm and 2 cases report

RATIONALE

Overbite control is a key factor in orthodontic treatment. In some cases, incisor intrusion is essential and could be an optimal strategy for overbite control. The aim of this article was to introduce a biomechanical system called the posterior miniscrew-assisted lever arm, which is innovative in using existing posterior miniscrews to intrude the upper incisors and to control anterior overbite while simultaneously retracting the anterior teeth. Its efficiency in incisor intrusion has been proved with 2 cases.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Two adult women who came for orthodontic treatment with the chief complaint of convex profile were included in this study.

DIAGNOSIS

Both patients had similar malocclusions of Class II molar relationship, anterior deep overjet, and anterior deep overbite.

INTERVENTIONS

Their treatment plans were to extract 4 first premolars and insert 2 maxillary posterior buccal miniscrews. After teeth aligning and leveling, en masse retraction was started in both arches. During the space-closing stage, posterior miniscrew-assisted lever arms were placed in their upper arches so as to intrude upper incisors and control the overbite.

OUTCOMES

After respectively 4 months and 3 months of incisor intrusion, the anterior overbite was successfully reduced to the normal range in each patient. Cephalometric analysis and superimposition also confirmed the treatment effect of this biomechanical system on incisor intrusion.

LESSONS

The posterior miniscrew-assisted lever arm is a valuable biomechanical system for intruding incisors and controlling anterior overbite.

Risk of root damage after using lateral cephalogram and intraoral scan for guided insertion of palatal miniscrews

Background

Guided insertion of palatal miniscrews using a lateral cephalogram instead of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) significantly reduces the radiation level for the patient. Till now no data are available on the risk of hitting the incisors in this regard, which is one of the worst clinical complications when inserting a paramedian miniscrew. Hence, this study aims to investigate the distance between the mini-implant and the roots of the central and lateral incisors.

Methods

Lateral cephalogram, an intraoral scan, and CBCT of 20 patients were superimposed. After a miniscrew (1.7 × 8 mm) placement based on intraoral scan and lateral cephalogram, the CBCT was used as control for the distance between the miniscrews and the roots of the incisors.

Results

The mean value of the shortest distance between the miniscrew and roots of the incisors in the lateral cephalogram was 4.74 ± 1.67 mm. The distance between both miniscrews and the central incisors measured in the CBCT was 5.03 ± 2.22 mm and 5.26 ± 2.21 mm and between the two miniscrews and the lateral incisors was 4.93 ± 1.91 mm and 5.21 ± 2.64 mm. No significant differences between the distances in the CBCT and the lateral cephalogram could be observed. In one case, the CBCT control revealed the penetration of two palatally displaced canines after insertion based on intraoral scan and lateral cephalogram.

Conclusions

The use of an intraoral scan and a lateral cephalogram for guided paramedian insertion of palatal miniscrews can prevent incisor root damage. This may reduce the radiation since no CBCT seems necessary. The current investigation focuses on the anterior paramedian area of the palate. Outside that region and in complex cases with displaced teeth in the palatal area, a CBCT might be indicated.

[Efficacy of vertical control by using mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of vertical control by using conventional mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients.

METHODS

Twenty-eight Angle class Ⅱ patients [9 males, 19 females, and age (22.6±2.8) years] were selected in this study. All of these patients were treated by using straight wire appliance with 4 premolars extraction and 2 mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area. In this study, the self-control method was used to measure and analyze the lateral radiographs taken before and after orthodontic treatment in each case, the main cephalometric analysis items were related to vertical changes. The digitized lateral radiographs were imported into Dolphin Imaging Software (version 11.5: Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, California, USA), and marked points were traced. Each marked point was confirmed by two orthodontists. The same orthodontist performed measurement on the lateral radiographs over a period of time. All measurement items were required to be measured 3 times, and the average value was taken as the final measurement result.

RESULTS

Analysis of the cephalometric radiographs showed that, for vertical measurements after treatment, the differences of the following measurements were highly statistically significant (P < 0.001): SN-MP decreased by (1.40±1.45) degrees on average, FMA decreased by (1.58±1.32) degrees on average, the back-to-front height ratio (S-Go/N-Me) decreased by 1.42%±1.43% on average, Y-axis angle decreased by (1.03±0.99) degrees on average, face angle increases by (1.37±1.05) degree on average; The following measurements were statistically significant (P < 0.05): the average depression of the upper molars was (0.68±1.40) mm, and the average depression of the upper anterior teeth was (1.07±1.55) mm. The outcomes indicated that there was a certain degree of upper molar depression after the treatment, which produced a certain degree of counterclockwise rotation of the mandibular plane, resulting in a positive effect on the improvement of the profile.

CONCLUSION

The conventional micro-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area has a certain vertical control ability, and can give rise to a certain counterclockwise rotation of the mandible, which would improve the profile of Angle Class Ⅱ patients.

A pilot study to investigate the histomorphometric changes of murine maxillary bone around the site of mini-screw insertion in regenerated bone induced by anabolic reagents

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the histomorphometric changes around the site of mini-screw insertion in the regenerated bone which was induced by an anabolic-injection method using both anabolic peptide and bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2).

METHODS

Twenty-seven eight-week-old C57BL/6J male mice were used. Some mice received submucosal co-injections of anabolic peptide and BMP-2 just in front of the maxillary first molar. Screw insertion was then performed 4 weeks after injection. All mice underwent a weekly in vivo micro-focal X-ray computed tomography (µCT) analysis before being sacrificed at week 8. The bone formation activity was evaluated using fluorescent labelling in the undecalcified sections. The analyses, including screw insertion, were performed in the frontal plane, in front of the site of screw insertion.

RESULTS

Reconstructed µCT images revealed that the co-injection of anabolic reagents could lead to a gradual increase in the bone mineral density (BMD) of the injection-induced thickened bone by week 8. Both radiological and histomorphometric analyses indicated that screw insertion did not have any deleterious effects on either the BMD or the bone formation activity of the induced bone. Furthermore, the injection of anabolic reagents also led to an increase in the BMD of the underlying maxillary bone at the injection site.

CONCLUSION

Our histomorphometric analyses suggest that performing such anabolic injection to thicken bone could stimulate bone formation in the basal bone as well as in the induced bone. Similar augmentation of bone formation could be obtained even after subsequent screw insertion at the site of the induced bone.

Effect of Different Head Hole Position on the Rotational Resistance and Stability of Orthodontic Miniscrews: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Study

The orthodontic miniscrew is driven into bone in a clockwise direction. Counter-clockwise rotational force applied to the implanted miniscrew can degrade the stability. The purpose of this three-dimensional finite element study was to figure out the effect of shifting the miniscrew head hole position from the long axis. Two miniscrew models were developed, one with the head hole at the long axis and the other with an eccentric hole position. One degree of counter-clockwise rotation was applied to both groups, and the maximum Von-Mises stress and moment was measured under various wire insertion angles from −60° to +60°. All Von-Mises stress and moments increased with an increase in rotational angle or wire insertion angle. The increasing slope of moment in the eccentric hole group was significantly higher than that in the centric hole group. Although the maximum Von-Mises stress was higher in the eccentric hole group, the distribution of stress was not very different from the centric hole group. As the positive wire insertion angles generated a higher moment under a counter-clockwise rotational force, it is recommended to place the head hole considering the implanting direction of the miniscrew. Clinically, multidirectional and higher forces can be applied to the miniscrew with an eccentric head hole position.

A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth

Background:

Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1^st premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics.

Objective:

We conducted this study with the aim of retracting the proclined maxillary anterior teeth and to check for efficient retraction, type of tooth movement during retraction, and amount of anchorage loss.

Methods:

Patients with proclined anterior teeth where therapeutic extraction of first premolars is required were included in the study, where anchorage was taken with mini-implants in one group, and in the second group, conventional anchorage method of 1^st and 2^nd molar banding with TPA was chosen. Each group consisted of 8 subjects. Lateral cephalogram was taken both preretraction and 4 months after starting retraction to compare anchor loss, rate of retraction, and type of tooth movement of retracted anteriors, in both groups.

Results:

The retraction in the implant group was more than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Anchorage loss was seen to be greater in conventional group than in the implant group and was also significant statistically. The type of tooth movement of the anterior teeth on retraction was also compared, with the implant group showing predominantly controlled tipping and the conventional group showing uncontrolled tipping movement.

Atypical extraction in Class I malocclusion: A case report

The treatment of Angle Class I malocclusion by atypical extraction is rather challenging. The extraction of four first premolars often manages it. However, in cases of compromised and non-restorable teeth, the extraction decision may be altered, making the anchorage and the treatment mechanics more challenging. This article reports the clinical case of a 16-year-old patient from Sudan who presented with a chief complaint “My teeth are crooked and sticking out.” He had Angle Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. He had severe crowding in both arches and localized marginal gingivitis related to an ectopically erupted upper right canine (UR3) and lower right first premolar (LR4). The patient had a provisional restoration in the lower right first molar (LR6). Extraction of three first premolars and one first molar was the alternative of choice for this treatment, which restored function, providing improved periodontal health, achieved the desired facial esthetics, and allowed finishing with a stable and balanced occlusion. Management of angle class I malocclusion with atypical extraction patterns should be performed with careful mechanics and anchorage planning to obtain good results.

Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage

The present article describes data from systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety outcomes comparing mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients with maximum dentoalveolar protrusion. All relevant RCTs and non-RCTs published up to 2018 were collected from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. Thirteen studies assessing the effect of mini-implants were included, of which 4 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies. The efficacy parameters include mesiodistal movements of molars and incisors and vertical movements of molars and incisors. Whereas, the safety parameters were angular and linear measurement of soft tissue change. Subgroup analysis data was provided in terms of patients average age (<18 years and ≥18 years) at the initiation of treatment. This dataset is suitable for research purpose in the field of orthodontics and also helps dental doctors to determine their treatment preferences in the choice of anchorage reinforcement.

Morphologic evaluation of root resorption after miniscrew assisted en mass retraction in adult bialveolar protrusion patients

Background

Bialveolar protrusion is one of the most common chief complaints from the Asian orthodontic patients. Typical orthodontic treatment includes extraction of the bimaxillary premolars and en mass retraction of anterior tooth with maximum anchorage by placing miniscrews. However, excessive pursuit of profile improvement by retraction and intrusion of anterior teeth may result in root resorption, alveolar bone loss, even dehiscence. Thus this retrospective, analytical study was to evaluate the root resorption of anterior teeth after miniscrew assisted en mass retraction in adult bialveolar protrusion patients.

Materials and methods

Thirty six adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion had four first premolars extracted, and then miniscrews were placed to provide anchorage. CBCT scans were performed before (T1) and posttreatment (T2). A new improvement project introduced for 3D CBCT registration assessment of root morphology. The paired t-test was used to compare changes from T1 to T2. The relationship between the root resorption and the movement of anterior teeth were assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient analysis.

Results

The significant differences were only found in apical third of root and the largest resorption in apical third of the root is always noted in the palatal and distal sectors. Significant correlations were observed in the loss of root in distal and palatal sectors, the root length and volume decrease with the amount of anterior teeth retraction and intrusion.

Conclusion

The new 3D registration assessment of root morphology will be helpful for the clinicians. Pursuit of large retraction and intrusion leads to obvious anterior teeth root resorption.

Distalization rate of maxillary canines in an alveolus filled with leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin in adults: A randomized controlled clinical split-mouth trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the distalization rate and changes in inclination of the maxillary canines in alveoli preserved with leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) membranes in adult patients. The null hypothesis was that there are no differences in the canine distalization movement rate between the treated and the control sides.

METHODS

A total of 21 healthy adult patients with a minimum age of 20 years (mean age, 33 ± 5.9 years) and Angle Class I or Class II Division 1 malocclusion, who had an indication of extraction of the maxillary first premolars and orthodontic distalization of the maxillary canines were included in this study. A randomized controlled clinical split-mouth trial was conducted; the experimental maxillary side was treated with L-PRF membranes, and the other side served as the control. A randomization sequence of the experimental sides among patients was generated using the random number generation function of Microsoft Excel. Neither the patients nor the operators were blinded. Fifteen days after the extractions, distalization was initiated using an elastic chain applying 150 g of force to the canines on a 0.020-in stainless steel archwire. The distalization rate was the main outcome of the study, and it was assessed monthly for 5 months through the intraoral use of a flexible ruler. The degree of inclination of the canines was the secondary outcome, and it was evaluated through cone-beam computed tomography. A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed, and a Wilcoxon signed rank test was subsequently used to compare the experimental and the control group. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the correlation between distalization and inclination for each side.

RESULTS

Four of the subjects dropped out of the study, leaving a total of 17 patients (n = 17). The distalization rate and inclination of the canines were greater on the control side than on the side treated with L-PRF (P <0.05). A weak correlation was found between the distalization rate and inclination of the canines for both sides (control side, ρ = 0.17; experimental, ρ = 0.11). No harm was observed during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The null hypothesis was rejected. The use of L-PRF in young adult patients decreased the rate of distalization and changes in inclination of the maxillary canines compared with the control group.

REGISTRATION

This trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis on En-Masse Retraction of the Maxillary Anterior Teeth With Quantitative Combined Loading Control

This study aims to elucidate the biomechanical effects of combined loading of maxillary anterior and posterior implants using the sliding method on en-masse retraction of the anterior teeth and to quantify the loading ratio (LR) of anterior and posterior implants to achieve controlled retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth. A three-dimensional finite element model of the maxilla-upper dentition appliance was constructed. Implants were placed on the distal (A) and mesial (B) sides of the lateral incisors as well as on the mesial (C) side of the first molar and different amounts of force were loaded between the implants using 2- or 5-mm traction hooks. The labiolingual movement of the anterior teeth was recorded and the relationship between the LR of the implants and the movement of the central incisors was evaluated. With 2-mm traction hooks, the central incisors exhibited a translation tendency during retraction at lower A/C and B/C LR and labial or lingual crown inclination at higher values. With 5-mm traction hooks, the central incisors, lateral incisors, and canine teeth exhibited a labial crown inclination. The results of this study suggest that 2-mm traction hooks can cause labial crown inclination, translation tendency during retraction, or lingual crown inclination of the central incisors due to alterations in the LR of the anterior and posterior implants. The central incisors only exhibited labial crown inclination during combined loading of the anterior and posterior implants when 5-mm traction hooks were used.

Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = -1.48, 95% CI = -2.25 to -0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.47 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to -0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = -0.21 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.58; P = .5).

CONCLUSION

MIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.

Soft Tissue Changes in Patients With Dentoalveolar Protrusion Treated With Maximum Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the angular and linear changes of soft tissue profile using conventional anchorage techniques and mini-implant (MI)-based space closure in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, viz. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for relevant literature from their inception to December 2017 according to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for searching: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Selected randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for their quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-RCTs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained with either fixed- or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles (2 RCTs with moderate risk of bias and 3 high-quality non-RCT studies) were included in the final analysis. The nasolabial angle had significantly greater changes in the MI group than in the conventional anchorage group (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.97, P < .0001). Significantly higher retraction of the upper lip was seen in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.18; P = .002). No significant difference was seen in the facial convexity (SMD = -0.34, 95% CI = -0.76 to 0.07, P = .106) and lower lip retraction (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI = -1.72 to 2.28, P = .784) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

It was seen that MIs facilitated favorable soft tissue profile than the conventional anchorage devices. However, more high-quality studies are warranted to confirm the clinical effectiveness of MIs.

Tooth extractions in Orthodontics: first or second premolars?

Tooth crowding and protrusions demand rigorous attention during orthodontic planning that includes the extraction of first and second premolars. Some characteristics, such as dentoalveolar bone discrepancies, maxillomandibular relations, facial profile, skeletal maturation, dental asymmetries and patient cooperation, are important elements of an orthodontic diagnosis. This study discusses the options of treatments with extractions and describes the correction of a Class I malocclusion, bimaxillary protrusion, severe anterior crowding in both dental arches and tooth-size discrepancy, using first premolar extractions.

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

OBJECTIVES

To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm (P = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P = .383).

CONCLUSIONS

Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

Treatment of a severe Class II Division 1 malocclusion combined with surgical miniscrew anchorage

This article reports the camouflage treatment of a female patient, aged 15 years 2 months, who had a Class II Division 1 malocclusion with severe anterior protrusion and deep incisor overbite. The camouflage treatment plan included bilateral extraction of the maxillary first premolars combined with the use of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and tension coil springs to retract canines into the extraction spaces and then the 4 incisors. The treatment included use of a mandibular fixed labial arch with minimal use of Class II elastics to correct mild mandibular spacing and level the curve of Spee. Ideal overjet and overbite relationships were established, and the final result was well balanced and esthetically pleasing. The molars were finished in a Class II relationship. Total treatment time was 2 years 6 months. Cephalometric superimpositions revealed that mandibular molars were not disturbed by the limited use of Class II elastics. Surgical miniscrews in canine and incisor retraction in Class II Division 1 malocclusion are an alternate type of temporary anchorage that reduce or remove reliance on conventional intermaxillary anchorage.

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

Background/aim

Retraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.

Material and methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.

Results

A total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments.

WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to − 2.79 mm [− 3.56 to − 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and − 1.76 mm [− 2.56 to − 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).

Conclusion

Within its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of force magnitude on torque control in the correction of bimaxillary protrusion with mass retraction

OBJECTIVES:

This study was designed to explore whether force magnitude would influence incisor torque control and the overall outcome in patients with bimaxillary protrusion who need mass incisor retraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Forty-one female patients (aged > 15 years) with bimaxillary protrusion requiring mass incisor retraction were selected. Two sliding mechanics were utilized, with the elastic group receiving a light force of ~100 g by wearing elastics and the power chain group receiving a moderate force of ~250 g by power chain. Lateral cephalograms obtained before and after treatment were traced and measured.

RESULTS:

Patients in both groups displayed maxillary protrusion with a similar skeletal class II tendency. A longer treatment time was found in the elastic group. No difference in the distance of incisor tip movement was observed between the two groups; however, a larger inclination of upper incisors was found in the elastic group, indicating less loss of torque. In addition, larger reduction in Sella-Nasion-A and A-Nasion-B angle was observed in the elastic group, which was accompanied by a larger ratio of upper lip retraction to upper incisor retraction as well as more upper lip retraction.

CONCLUSIONS:

Sliding mechanics with elastics to generate light forces can achieve better torque control with more reduction in skeletal and soft tissue protrusion.

Comparison of orthodontic tooth movement between adolescents and adults based on implant superimposition

OBJECTIVE

We compared tooth movement under maximum anchorage control with mini-screw implants in growing and non-growing patients.

METHODS

In total, 15 adolescent (G1) and 19 adult (G2) patients with prognathic profiles were selected. All patients underwent first premolar extraction treatment with mini-screw implants for maximum anchorage control. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were obtained immediately after implant placement (T1) and at the end of anterior tooth retraction (T2). Tooth movement and root length changes of the maxillary first molar, canine, and incisors were evaluated with three-dimensional models constructed using CBCT data obtained before and after orthodontic retraction through the superimposition of stable implants.

RESULTS

Distal movement of the molar crown was observed in G2, but mesial movement was observed in G1. Mesial tipping of the first molar (1.82 ± 6.76°) was seen in G1 and distal tipping (4.44 ± 3.77°) was observed in G2. For the canines, mesial crown tipping (0.33 ± 4.99°) was noted in G1 and distal crown tipping (8.00 ± 5.57°) was observed in G2. In adults, the lingual inclinations of the lateral and central incisors were 11.91 ± 7.01° and 11.47 ± 6.70°, with 0.99 ± 1.22 mm and 1.08 ± 1.20 mm root retraction, respectively. In adolescents, the torque changes were smaller (lateral incisors, 8.25 ± 10.15°; central incisors, 9.82 ± 8.97°) and the root retractions were 0.31 ± 1.81 mm and 0.77 ± 1.59 mm, respectively. Less shortening of the central incisor roots occurred in adolescents than in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth movements, such as anchor molar angular change, the canine tipping pattern, and the amount of incisor retraction, differed between adolescents and adults treated using the same anchorage with mini-screw implants, bracket prescription, and en masse retraction method. Anchorage strength of the first molars, canine movement patterns, and incisor retraction ranges are not determined by the anchorage device alone; growth and alveolar limitations also play roles.

Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This review aims to compare the effectiveness of en masse and two-step retraction methods during orthodontic space closure regarding anchorage preservation and anterior segment retraction and to assess their effect on the duration of treatment and root resorption.

Methods

An electronic search for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in five electronic databases up to July 2017. The process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently. A narrative review is presented in addition to a quantitative synthesis of the pooled results where possible. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for the methodological quality assessment of the included studies.

Results

Eight studies were included in the qualitative synthesis in this review. Four studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. En masse/miniscrew combination showed a statistically significant standard mean difference regarding anchorage preservation − 2.55 mm (95% CI − 2.99 to − 2.11) and the amount of upper incisor retraction − 0.38 mm (95% CI − 0.70 to − 0.06) when compared to a two-step/conventional anchorage combination. Qualitative synthesis suggested that en masse retraction requires less time than two-step retraction with no difference in the amount of root resorption.

Conclusions

Both en masse and two-step retraction methods are effective during the space closure phase. The en masse/miniscrew combination is superior to the two-step/conventional anchorage combination with regard to anchorage preservation and amount of retraction. Limited evidence suggests that anchorage reinforcement with a headgear produces similar results with both retraction methods. Limited evidence also suggests that en masse retraction may require less time and that no significant differences exist in the amount of root resorption between the two methods.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40510-017-0196-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Maxillary incisors changes during space closure with conventional and skeletal anchorage methods: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review was to compare the antero-posterior, vertical and angular changes of maxillary incisors with conventional anchorage control techniques and mini-implant based space closure methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic databases Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library and Open Grey were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords. Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria as well as their references were manually searched. The primary outcome data (linear, angular, and vertical maxillary incisor changes) and secondary outcome data (overbite changes, soft tissue changes, biomechanical factors, root resorption and treatment duration) were extracted from the selected articles and entered into spreadsheets based on the type of anchorage used. The methodological quality of each study was assessed.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The amount of incisor retraction was greater with buccally placed mini-implants than conventional anchorage techniques. The incisor retraction with indirect anchorage from palatal mini-implants was less when compared with buccally placed mini-implants. Incisor intrusion occurred with buccal mini-implants, whereas extrusion was seen with conventional anchorage. Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies.

CONCLUSION

More RCT's that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on incisor changes during space closure.

Effects of bodily retraction of mandibular incisors versus mandibular setback surgery on pharyngeal airway space: A comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the changes induced in the pharyngeal airway space by orthodontic treatment with bodily retraction of the mandibular incisors and mandibular setback surgery without extraction.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 63 adult patients (32 men and 31 women). Thirty-three patients who had been treated via four-bicuspid extraction and bodily retraction of the mandibular incisors (incisor retraction, IR group) were compared with 30 patients who had been treated via mandibular setback surgery (MS group) without extraction. Lateral cephalograms were acquired and analyzed before (T1) and after treatment (T2).

RESULTS

The superior pharyngeal airway space did not change significantly in either group during treatment. The middle pharyngeal airway space decreased by 1.15 ± 1.17 mm and 1.25 ± 1.35 mm after treatment in the IR and MS groups, respectively, and the decrease was comparable between the two groups. In the MS group, the inferior pharyngeal airway space (E-IPW) decreased by 0.88 ± 1.67 mm after treatment (p < 0.01). The E-IPW was larger in the MS group than in IR group at T1, but it did not differ significantly between the two groups at T2. No significant correlation was observed between changes in the pharyngeal airway space and the skeletal and dental variables in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The middle pharyngeal airway space decreased because of the posterior displacement of the mandibular incisors and/or the mandibular body. The E-IPW decreased only in the MS group because of the posterior displacement of only the mandibular body.

Comparison of treatment effects between the modified C-palatal plate and cervical pull headgear for total arch distalization in adults

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dental and skeletal effects of the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) for total arch distalization in adult patients with Class II malocclusion and compare the findings with those of cervical pull headgear.

Methods

The study sample consisted of the lateral cephalograms of 44 adult patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, including 22 who received treatment with MCPP (age, 24.7 ± 7.7 years) and 22 who received treatment with cervical pull headgear (age, 23.0 ± 7.7 years). Pre- (T1) and post-treatment (T2) cephalograms were analyzed for 24 linear and angular measurements. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the changes after treatment in each group and differences in treatment effects between the two groups.

Results

The mean amount of distalization at the crown and root levels of the maxillary first molar and the amount of distal tipping was 4.2 mm, 3.5 mm, and 3.9° in the MCPP group, and 2.3 mm, 0.6 mm, and 8.6° in the headgear group, respectively. In addition, intrusion by 2.5 mm was observed in the MCPP group. In both groups, the distal movement of the upper lip and the increase in the nasolabial angle were statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, none of the skeletal and soft tissue variables exhibited significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that MCPP is an effective treatment modality for total arch distalization in adults.

Treatment of Class II malocclusion with mandibular skeletal anchorage

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this case report was to present the dentofacial changes obtained with bone anchorage in a Class II patient with moderate to severe crowding.

METHODS

A boy, aged 14.5 years, with a dolichofacial type, convex profile, and skeletal and dental Class II relationships was examined. After evaluation, functional treatment with bone anchorage and 4 first premolar extractions was decided as the treatment approach. Miniplates were placed on the buccal shelves of the mandibular third molars. The hook of the anchor was revealed from the first molar level. After surgery, the 4 first premolars were extracted to retract the protrusive mandibular incisors. The maxillary and mandibular first molars were banded, and a lip bumper was inserted to apply elastics and to help distalize the maxillary first molars. Orthodontic forces of 300 to 500 g were applied immediately after placement, originating from the miniscrews to the hooks of the appliance to advance the mandible.

RESULTS

After 20 months of treatment, the patient had a dental and skeletal Class I relationship, the mandible was advanced, the maxilla was restrained, and overjet was decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a bone anchor, Class II elastics, and an inner bow is a promising alternative to functional treatment, along with extractions, in Class II patients.

Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants-temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices (TISADs)-in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction in relation to conventional methods of anchorage.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science was performed. The keywords were orthodontic, mini-implants, miniscrews, miniplates, and temporary anchorage device. Relevant articles were assessed for quality according to Cochrane guidelines and the data extracted for statistical analysis. A meta-analysis of raw mean differences concerning anchorage loss, tipping of molars, retraction of incisors, tipping of incisors, and treatment duration was carried out.

RESULTS

Initially, we retrieved 10,038 articles. The selection process finally resulted in 14 articles including 616 patients (451 female, 165 male) for detailed analysis. Quality of the included studies was assessed as moderate. Meta-analysis showed that use of TISADs facilitates better anchorage reinforcement compared with conventional methods. On average, TISADs enabled 1.86 mm more anchorage preservation than did conventional methods (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the meta-analysis showed that TISADs are more effective than conventional methods of anchorage reinforcement. The average difference of 2 mm seems not only statistically but also clinically significant. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the moderate quality of the included studies. More high-quality studies on this issue are necessary to enable drawing more reliable conclusions.

Comparison of temporary anchorage devices and transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal effects of canine retraction using conventional anchorage reinforcement systems and comparing them with the usage of TADs.

Materials and Methods:

The sample consisted of 50 patients having Class I malocclusions with bimaxillary protrusion indicated for first premolar extraction, and allocated into two groups. The first group consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 18,7 years (min:14, max:22 years, 16 girls and 9 boys) that TADs were applied as an anchorage mechanic between attached gingiva of upper second premolar and first molar teeth. The second group consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 19,4 years (min:15, max:23 years, 14 girls and 11 boys) that conventional molar anchorage with Transpalatal arch (TPA) was applied for the anchorage mechanics against canine retraction.

Results:

The results showed that mean mesial movement and the tipping of the first molars in TAD group between T0 - T1 were insignificant (P > 0,05), however in the TPA group were significant (P<0,01). Vertical movement of the molars were not significant when two groups were compared (P>0,05).

Conclusion:

Although TPA is a useful appliance, it doesn't provide an effective anchorage control on anteroposterior movement maxillary first molar teeth concerning first premolar extraction treatment. TADs are more convenient to provide absolute anchorage during maxillary canine retraction in contrast to transpalatal arch.

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

OBJECTIVE

To investigate initial forces acting on teeth around the arch during en masse retraction using an in vitro Orthodontic SIMulator (OSIM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The OSIM was used to represent the full maxillary arch in a case wherein both first premolars had been extracted. Dental and skeletal anchorage to a posted archwire and skeletal anchorage to a 10-mm power arm were all simulated. A 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was used in all cases, and 15-mm light nickel-titanium springs were activated to approximately 150 g on both sides of the arch. A sample size of n = 40 springs were tested for each of the three groups. Multivariate analysis of variance (α = 0.05) was used to determine differences between treatment groups.

RESULTS

In the anterior segment, it was found that skeletal anchorage with power arms generated the largest retraction force (P < .001). The largest vertical forces on the unit were generated using skeletal anchorage, followed by skeletal anchorage with power arms, and finally dental anchorage. Power arms were found to generate larger intrusive forces on the lateral incisors and extrusive forces on the canines than on other groups. For the posterior anchorage unit, dental anchorage generated the largest protraction and palatal forces. Negligible forces were measured for both skeletal anchorage groups. Vertical forces on the posterior unit were minimal in all cases (<0.1 N).

CONCLUSIONS

All retraction methods produced sufficient forces to retract the anterior teeth during en masse retraction. Skeletal anchorage reduced forces on the posterior teeth but introduced greater vertical forces on the anterior teeth.

Comparison of the effects of mini-implant and traditional anchorage on patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare the treatment effects of mini-implants as anchor units with conventional methods of anchorage reinforcement in maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients in terms of skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, OVIDSP, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, and CNKI covering December 1966 to March 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials that compared the treatment effects of mini-implants with conventional anchorage reinforcement in maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients. Literature filtering, data extraction, and methodological quality evaluation were finished independently by two researchers and disagreements were solved by discussion. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done.

RESULTS

Through a predefined search strategy, we finally included 14 eligible studies. Eight outcomes were evaluated in this study: maxillary incisor retraction, maxillary molar movement, U1-SN, SNA, SN-MP, UL-E Plane, NLA and G-Sn-Pg.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-implant anchorage was more effective in retracting the anterior teeth, produced less anchorage loss, and had a greater effect on SN-MP for the high-angle patients than did traditional anchorage. Both mini-implants and traditional anchorage underwent decreases in on U1-SN and SNA. More qualified RCTs are required to make reliable recommendations about the anchorage capacity of mini-implant and traditional anchorage in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion, especially on the UL-E plane, NLA, and G-Sn-Pg.

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion

INTRODUCTION

This study provides vital insight in assessing anchorage loss when miniscrews are indirectly loaded.

METHODS

The study sample comprised 18 patients with bimaxillary protrusion (14 girls, 4 boys; mean age, 17.3 ± 4.6 years) selected from a database of 89 patients treated with miniscrews. All subjects who were selected required extraction of all first premolars and maximum anchorage. After initial leveling and aligning, miniscrews were placed between the first molar and the second premolar in all 4 quadrants and loaded by the indirect method at 3 weeks after placement with 200-g nickel-titanium alloy closed-coil springs for en-masse retraction. Mean treatment duration was 29.7 ± 6.8 months. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed to measure the amount of anchorage loss, incisor retraction, and the incisors' angular change in reference to the pterygoid vertical reference line and were evaluated by the structural superimposition method.

RESULTS

The ratio of incisor retraction to molar protraction was 4.2 in the maxilla and 4.7 in the mandible. The first molars showed mean extrusion of 0.20 mm in the maxilla and 0.57 mm in the mandible; these were statistically insignificant. The mean angular change of the first molars was -2.43° in the maxilla and -0.03° in the mandible. The mean anchorage loss in reference to the pterygoid vertical was 1.3 mm in the maxilla and 1.1 mm in the mandible; these were statistically significant. Structural superimpositions showed mean change in molar position of 0.83 mm in the maxilla and 0.87 mm in the mandible, and 5.77 mm in the maxillary incisor and 5.43 mm in the mandibular incisor. These results were compared with the direct anchorage method reported in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect miniscrew anchorage can be a viable alternative to direct anchorage.

Implants for orthodontic anchorage: success rates and reasons of failures

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to analyze the success rate of mini-implants and miniscrews and to report the reasons behind them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search from PubMed databases and a hand search in implant- and orthodontic-related journals were performed until December 31, 2011. Human clinical studies in English that reported temporary anchorage devices used for orthodontic purpose with at least 6 months follow-up were included. In addition, the minimal number of implants had to be at least 10. Implants placed in maxilla, mandible, and hard palate were included.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 847 articles, of which 46 were further evaluated. Finally, 29 studies were qualified and classified into 2 groups: implants placed in maxilla and mandible (group 1) and implants placed in hard palate (group 2). A meta-analysis performed for groups 1 and 2 showed 87.8% and 93.8% survival rate, respectively. In addition, the most common cause for implants failure was surgery-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Mini-implant survival rate is location dependent, with those placed in the palate showing higher success rates. In addition, failures most commonly occur because of surgery-related factors.

Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to determine differences between the outcomes of treatment using microimplant anchorage compared with headgear anchorage in adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion treated with self-ligating brackets.

METHODS

Thirty-one adult orthodontic patients (13 men, 18 women; age, 25.87 ± 3.37 years) who were diagnosed with bimaxillary protrusion were selected. All patients were treated with self-ligating brackets and maximum anchorage after extraction of 4 first premolars. Group 1 received microimplant anchorage, and group 2 received headgear. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained before and after treatment. Differences in the skeletal and dental parameters between and within groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the mean treatment times between the groups (21.93 ± 3.10 vs 23.88 ± 2.68 months). There was no significant difference in skeletal measurements before or after treatment in patients who received microimplant anchorage. Patients who received headgear anchorage had an increase of the mandibular plane angle. The microimplant anchorage group had greater anterior tooth retraction and less maxillary molar mesialization than did the headgear group.

CONCLUSIONS

In both the anteroposterior and vertical directions, microimplant anchorage achieved better control than did the traditional headgear appliance during the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion.

Intrusion of supraerupted maxillary molar using a high interim restoration on the defective opposing tooth: a clinical report

Wear, extraction, or fracture of all or part of a mandibular first molar can lead to the supraeruption of the opposing maxillary molar, resulting in occlusal interference and lack of restoration space. This report describes a method to gain sufficient vertical space for permanent restoration. A direct composite resin restoration was placed on the occlusal surface of a lower molar, intentionally making the interim restoration high and intruding the maxillary molar. After 6 weeks, the extruded tooth returned to the desired position, and functional occlusion was restored, enabling a ceramic restoration on the mandibular molar. No marked adverse sensory reaction was reported in this therapeutic process, and no deleterious signs were detected in the teeth, periodontium, or temporomandibular joints. The simple treatment type was effective, noninvasive, and time saving, while also preserving maximum tooth structures.

Palatal bone thickness and associated factors in adult miniscrew placements: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Palatal bone thickness measurements obtained by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 30 men and 28 women were evaluated for associated factors. Palatal bone thickness was measured at 20 locations unilateral to the midpalatal suture and posterior to the incisive foramen. Tongue position, presence of posterior crossbite, and palatal morphology were recorded. Lateral cephalograms acquired from CBCT data were used to calculate Frankfort-mandibular plane angles (FMA). At almost all sites, bone thickness was greater in males than in females, but the difference was statistically significant at only seven sites. Bone thickness showed no associations with tongue position, palatal morphology, or presence of posterior crossbite. In women, FMA significantly correlated with bone thickness at 12 locations. In conclusion, palatal bone thickness is unassociated with tongue position, posterior crossbite, or palatal morphology. In hyperdivergent women, however, available bone may be smaller than normal in the middle and posterior palatal areas; in such cases, a shorter than normal miniscrew may be needed to avoid penetrating the nasal cavity.