Search

ObjectiveTo measure the palatal soft tissue thickness and cortical bone density to determine safe regions for the placement of orthodontic mini-implants and to examine the influence of sex and age on soft tissue thickness and cortical bone density.Materials and methodsCone-beam computed tomography images of 42 patients (22 males and 20 females), including 21 adults and 21 adolescents, were examined in this study. The palatal soft tissue thickness and cortical bone density were measured at the coronal planes between the premolars (P4–5), between the second premolars and first molars (P5–6), and between the first molars and second molars (P6–7).ResultsThe thickness of the soft tissue revealed similar coronal planes, but the bone density varied. The mean thickness was 3.8 mm at 0°–60° and 1.5 mm at 60°–90°. P4–5 had the highest bone density (>600 HU), decreasing toward P6–7 (

A patient with a Class II division 2 malocclusion is presented, illustrating the application of a modified double J retractor (DJR) and palatal miniscrews along with clear aligners to correct the malocclusion and normalize the incisor torque. In terms of incisor torque recovery, a nonextraction approach might be a good choice if the Class II correction could be successfully achieved with total arch distalization. When maxillary molar distalization was limited by anatomical boundaries, the treatment plan was changed to bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions, which led to even more retroclination of the maxillary incisors after space closure. Anterior interdental miniscrews were used to intrude the maxillary incisors. A modified DJR and palatal miniscrews were used to regain torque and achieve palatal root movement of the maxillary incisors. The treatment effects and biomechanical designs were evaluated for torque recovery of the retroclined maxillary incisors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A double J retractor (DJR) and palatal miniscrews were used to retract maxillary anterior teeth after failure of buccal posterior miniscrews. The line of action passing through the center of resistance of the maxillary anterior teeth and the moment generated by the palatal miniscrews via torquing springs successfully controlled the overbite and incisor torque during space closure. The DJR and palatal miniscrews work well with labial fixed appliances to address bimaxillary protrusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced periodontal disease and its sequelae are characterized by severe attachment loss, tooth mobility, and migration. This pathology often leads to compromised function and esthetics. A multidisciplinary approach combining orthodontic, periodontic, and restorative treatment is necessary to provide complete rehabilitation both in terms of function and esthetics with a satisfactory long-term prognosis. Methods: A simple and effective treatment of an adult patient with periodontally migrated teeth using mini-implants in the maxilla and mandible is described. Mini-implant placement was aided by a 3D surgical guide, which made the procedure exceedingly safe. Results: Gradual intrusion of the maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth was achieved with a relatively simple orthodontic force system. A significant profile improvement was observed during the 18 months of treatment due to the retraction and intrusion of the incisors in both arches. This intrusion was accomplished without any sign of apical root resorption. The mandibular incisors were uprighted 6.5 degrees, and their maxillary counterparts were uprighted 13.4 degrees. The 2-year follow-up examination revealed a stable result with an increase in periodontal attachment as well as esthetics and function. Conclusion: A combined orthodontic, periodontic, and restorative treatment approach with adequate patient motivation can lead to improved masticatory function, esthetics, and periodontal conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To study the values of mini-implant anchorage in orthodontics for children in the mixed dentition stage, 78 children in the mixed dentition stage who had accepted orthodontic treatment in our hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were enrolled into this study. All children were treated with straight-wire appliance. According to their anchorages, children were divided into observation group and control group based on the random number table. Children in the control group used face-bow to control the anchorages and children in the observation group used mini-implants to control the anchorages. After treatment, the upper central incisor convex distance difference, inclination angle of the upper central incisor, displacement of the molar, gingival health, masticatory function, treatment effect and adverse reaction rate of children in two groups were compared. One year after treatment, compared with children in the control group, children in the observation group had smaller the upper central incisor convex distance difference, inclination angle of the upper central incisor, displacement of the molar, small scores of plaque index (PLI), bleeding index (BI) and gingival index (GI), stronger biting force and higher masticatory efficiency, lower adverse reaction rate during treatment, better treatment effect, higher satisfaction of orthodontic treatment. And differences of all the above indexes were statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Mini-implant anchorages have good stability and directive force, and have certain values in orthodontics for children in the mixed dentition stage., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (©2024 The Author(s). Published by MRE Press.)

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effects of direct and indirect miniimplant anchorage on tooth movement, skeletal and soft-tissue changes following sliding en masse retraction in adult patients with maxillary protrusion. A total of 30 patients (6 male, 24 female, mean age 23.5±6.29 years) were randomly assigned to group A with direct mini-implant anchorage or group B with indirect mini-implant anchorage. Lateral cephalograms taken before and after retraction were used to evaluate the changes during space closure. Independent sample t tests were performed to compare the baseline cephalometric data and treatment changes between the two groups. Paired sample t tests were performed to examine the changes within each group. The Results showed that no significant difference in anteroposterior skeletal changes was found between the two groups. The occlusal plane rotated clockwise 4.11° (p<0.001) in group A and remained stable in group B. Regarding dental changes, the maxillary molars mesialized by 0.83 mm in group B and showed non-significantly anteroposterior movement in group A. In group A the molars showed significant distal inclination (6.97°, p<0.001) and intrusion (2.74 mm, p<0.001) compared with group B (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the anteroposterior or vertical movement of the incisors between the two groups. The soft-tissue parameters were significantly improved in both groups (p<0.001) while no differences were found between the groups. In conclusions, both directly and indirectly loaded mini-implants can provide successful anchorage. Indirect mini-implant anchorage enabled better sliding mechanics compared to direct anchorage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A patient with a Class II division 2 malocclusion is presented, illustrating the application of a modified double J retractor (DJR) and palatal miniscrews along with clear aligners to correct the malocclusion and normalize the incisor torque. In terms of incisor torque recovery, a nonextraction approach might be a good choice if the Class II correction could be successfully achieved with total arch distalization. When maxillary molar distalization was limited by anatomical boundaries, the treatment plan was changed to bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions, which led to even more retroclination of the maxillary incisors after space closure. Anterior interdental miniscrews were used to intrude the maxillary incisors. A modified DJR and palatal miniscrews were used to regain torque and achieve palatal root movement of the maxillary incisors. The treatment effects and biomechanical designs were evaluated for torque recovery of the retroclined maxillary incisors., (© 0000 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.)

Growing class III patients with maxillary deficiency may be treated with a maxillary protraction facemask. Because the force generated by this appliance is applied to the teeth, the inevitable mesial migration of the dentition can result in anterior crowding, incisor prodination and a possible need for subsequent extraction therapy. The Hybrid Hyrax appliance, anchored on mini-implants in the anterior palate, can be used to overcome these side-effects during the facemask therapy. In some class III cases, there is also a need for subsequent distalization after the orthopaedic treatment. In this paper, clinical application of the Hybrid Hyrax Distalizer is described, facilitating both orthopaedic advancement of the maxilla and simultaneous orthodontic distalization of the maxillary molars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 signedrank 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 FROM AUTHOR]

The use of Orthodontic mini-implant anchorage is rapidly growing. With the improved understanding of the biomechanics, an array of tooth movements are possible with mini-implants. Precise positioning of miniscrews is critical to their success. Surgical stents, guides and templates can transfer a radiographically planned, three-dimensional implant position to the surgical site more accurately. A new technique using thermoplastic sheets and a grid made of 0.012" stainless steel ligature wire (Tray-Grid Guide; TGG) was devised that provides reliable guidance in terms of both location and angulations with minimal complications. It was found to be effective and efficient to obtain a precise and accurate placement of mini-implants. It is particularly valuable when the mini-implant is prescribed and inserted by different clinicians or when the orthodontist is inexperienced in implant techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze tooth movement and arch width changes in maxillary dentition following nonextraction treatment with orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage in Class II division 1 malocclusions., Methods: Seventeen adult patients diagnosed with Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated by nonextraction with OMIs as anchorage for distalization of whole maxillary dentition. Three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed with the best-fit method at the pretreatment and post-treatment stages. Linear, angular, and arch width variables were measured using Rapidform 2006 software, and analyzed by the paired t-test., Results: All maxillary teeth showed statistically significant movement posteriorly (p < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the vertical position of the maxillary teeth, except that the second molars were extruded (0.86 mm, p < 0.01). The maxillary first and second molars were rotated distal-in (4.5°, p < 0.001; 3.0°, p < 0.05, respectively). The intersecond molar width increased slightly (0.1 mm, p > 0.05) and the intercanine, interfirst premolar, intersecond premolar, and interfirst molar widths increased significantly (2.2 mm, p < 0.01; 2.2 mm, p < 0.05; 1.9 mm, p < 0.01; 2.0 mm, p < 0.01; respectively)., Conclusions: Nonextraction treatment with OMI anchorage for Class II division 1 malocclusions could retract the whole maxillary dentition to achieve a Class I canine and molar relationship without a change in the vertical position of the teeth; however, the second molars were significantly extruded. Simultaneously, the maxillary arch was shown to be expanded with distal-in rotation of the molars., Competing Interests: The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

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.