Farklı Kesici İntrüzyon Mekaniklerinin Daimi Üst Birinci Molar Dişlere Etkilerinin Üç Boyutlu Olarak Değerlendirilmesi
Abstract
Amaç: Bu
çalışmanın amacı, derin örtülü kapanışa sahip bireylerde üst kesici dişlerin
farklı tekniklerle intrüzyonunun daimi üst 1. Molar dişe etkilerinin 3 boyutlu
sefalometrik analiz ile karşılaştırılmasıdır.
Materyal ve Metot: Araştırmamıza,
postpubertal dönemde, overbite’ı >4mm. ve dişeti gülümsemesi ≥2 mm. olan
toplam 34 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hastalar rastgele bir şekilde Connecticut
intrüzyon arkı (CTA) ile minivida ankrajlı intrüzyon sistemi (MAİS) gruplarına
ayrılarak üst kesici dişlerin intrüzyonu gerçekleştirilen bireylerde üst 1.
büyük azılarda ortaya çıkan etkileri değerlendirilmiştir. İntrüzyondan önce
(T1) ve sonra (T2) alınan konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi (KIBT) verileri 3
boyutlu (3D) sefalometrik analizle incelenmiştir. Tedaviye bağlı değişenlerin
grup içi değerlendirilmesinde “Bağımlı örneklerde t-testi”; gruplar arasındaki
karşılaştırılmasında “Bağımsız örneklerde t-testi” uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular: Üst kesici
dişlerin intrüzyonu gerçekleştirilen hastalarda, üst 1. molar dişler yalnızca
CTA grubundaki bireylerde distale devrilmiş (1.48 mm/7.63 derece) ve bu durum
gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Üst
birinci molar dişin direnç merkezleri arası mesafe yalnızca CTA grubunda
artarken (0.31 mm), gruplar arasında oluşan değişim istatistiksel olarak önemli
çıkmıştır.
Sonuç: Tedavi sonunda CTA veya MAİS teknikleri genel olarak benzer intrüziv
etkiler oluşturmuşlardır. Özellikle derin örtülü kapanışa sahip bireylerde
posterior bölgeden ankraj alınmak istenmediğinde MAİS prosedürünün
kullanılmasını önerilirken, minivida uygulamasının yapılamayacağı bireylerde
ise CTA uygulamasının başarılı bir alternatif olacağını düşünmekteyiz
References
- 1. Van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IH. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006;129:658-665.
- 2. Lewis P. Correction of deep anterior overbite. A report of three cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1987;91:342-345.
- 3. Weiland FJ, Bantleon H-P, Droschl H. Evaluation of continuous arch and segmented arch leveling techniques in adult patients-a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1996;110:647-652.
- 4. Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod, 1977;72:1-22.
- 5. Polat-Özsoy Ö, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Veziroğlu F. Miniscrews for upper incisor intrusion. Eur J Orthod, 2009;31:412-416.
- 6. Lindauer SJ, Lewis SM, Shroff B. Overbite Correction and Smile Aesthetics. Semin Orthod, 2005;11:62-66.
- 7. Nanda R, Marzban R, Kuhlberg A. The Connecticut Intrusion Arch. J Clin Orthod, 1998;32:708-715.
- 8. Polat-Ozsoy O, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Veziroglu F, Cetinsahin A. Comparison of the intrusive effects of miniscrews and utility arches. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011;139:526-532.
- 9. Nanda R. Correction of deep overbite in adults. Dent Clin North Am, 1997;41:67-87.
- 10. Nanda R, Kuhlberg A. Management of Deep Overbite Malocclusion. In: Nanda R (eds). Biomechanics and Esthetic Strategies in Clinical Orthodontics, St. Louis, Missouri, Elsevier Saunders, 2005.
- 11. WR. P, HW. F, DM. S. Contemporary Orhodontics. 5th. ed. St. Louis, Missouri 63043, 2013.
- 12. Dermaut LR, Vanden Bulcke MM. Evaluation of intrusive mechanics of the type "segmented arch" on a macerated human skull using the laser reflection technique and holographic interferometry. Am J Orthod, 1986;89:251-263.
- 13. Zachrisson BU. Esthetic Factors Involved in Anterior Tooth Display and the Smile: Vertical Dimension. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 1998;32:432-445.
- 14. Ball JV, Hunt NP. The effect of Andresen, Harvold, and Begg treatment on overbite and molar eruption. Eur J Orthod, 1991;13:53-58.
- 15. Hans MG, Kishiyama C, Parker SH, Wolf GR, Noachtar R. Cephalometric evaluation of two treatment strategies for deep overbite correction. Angle Orthod, 1994;64:265-274; discussion 275-266.
- 16. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008;133:654-660.
- 17. Mitchell DL, Stewart WL. Documented leveling of the lower arch using metallic implants for reference. Am J Orthod, 1973;63:526-532.
- 18. Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs. Part I. Am J Orthod, 1976;70:241-268.
- 19. van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IHA. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006;129:658-665.
- 20. Dake ML, Sinclair PM. A comparison of the Ricketts and Tweed-type arch leveling techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1989; 95:72-78.
- 21. Parker CD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Skeletal and dental changes associated with the treatment of deep bite malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1995;107:382-393.
- 22. Barton KA. Overbite changes in the Begg and edgewise techniques. Am J Orthod, 1972;62:48-55.
- 23. Upadhyay M, Nanda R. Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Deep Overbite. In: Dolan J (translate eds). R. Nanda SK (eds). Current Therapy in Orthodontics, 1th ed. Missouri, Mosby Elsevier, 2010;186-198.
- 24. Tosun Y. Sabit Ortodontik Apareylerin Biyomekanik Prensipleri. 1th ed. İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1999.
- 25. Otto RL, Anholm JM, Engel GA. A comparative analysis of intrusion of incisor teeth achieved in adults and children according to facial type. Am J Orthod, 1980;77:437-446.
- 26. Kinzel J, Aberschek P, Mischak I, Droschl H. Study of the extent of torque, protrusion and intrusion of the incisors in the context of Class II, division 2 treatment in adults. J Orofac Orthop, 2002;63:283-299.
- 27. Steenbergen Ev, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IHA. The Role of a High Pull Headgear in Counteracting Side Effects from Intrusion of the Maxillary Anterior Segment. Angle Orthod, 2004;74:480-486.
- 28. Upadhyay M, Nagaraj K, Yadav S, Saxena R. Mini-implants for en masse intrusion of maxillary anterior teeth in a severe Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod, 2008;35:79-89.
- 29. Amasyalı M, Sağdıç D, Ölmez H, Akın E. Intrusive Effects of the Connecticut Intrusion Arch and the Utility Intrusion Arch. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 2005;407-415.
- 30. Senisik NE, Turkkahraman H. Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012;141:723-733.
- 31. Sarver DM. Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2015;148:380-386.
- 32. Yeter MY. Diş-doku destekli ve kemik destekli molar distalizasyonu apareylerinin 3 boyutlu olarak karşılaştırılması. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2012.
- 33. Kurt E. İskeletsel sınıf III anomaliye sahip bireylerde diş-kemik destekli yüz maskesi tedavisinin kraniofasiyal yapılara etkilerinin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografik görüntüleme yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Ortodonti Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2013.
- 34. Ates FN. Hızlı üst çene genişletmesinin kranio-fasiyal yapılara etkilerinin, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleme ve üç boyutlu sefalometri yöntemleri ile incelenmesi. Ortodonti Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2012.
- 35. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1983;382-390.
- 36. Proffit WR, RP W, Sarver DM. Long Face Problems. In:Proffit WR, RP W, Sarver DM (eds). Contemporary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformiy, St Louis, Mosby, 2003;464-506.
- 37. Şenışık NE. Derin Kapanışlı Vakaların İmplant ve İntrüzyon Arkları ile Tedavilerinin Karşılaştırılması. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü - Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı. Isparta: T.C. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, 2009.
- 38. Ohnishi H, Yagi T, Yasuda Y, Takada K. A Mini-Implant for Orthodontic Anchorage in a Deep Overbite Case. Angle Orthod, 2005;75:444-452.
- 39. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008;134:803-810.
- 40. Woods MG. The mechanics of lower incisor intrusion:Experiments in nongrowing baboons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1988;93:186-195.
A THREE-DIMENSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT INCISOR INTRUSION MECHANICS TO THE PERMANENT MAXILLARY FIRST MOLAR TEETH BY USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Abstract
Objective: The present study aims to
evaluate the impacts of the upper incisor teeth intrusion in deepbite patients by
two different techniques to the permanent maxillary first molar tooth using the
three-dimensional cephalometric analysis in the individuals.
Materials and Methods: The population of this
study consists of 34 patients with >4 mm overbite
and a ≥2 mm gummy smile during post-pubertal period. Patients who underwent
intrusion of upper incisor teeth were randomized to receive Connecticut
intrusion arch (CTA) or miniscrew anchorage intrusion system (MAIS) to compare
the impacts on permanent maxillary first molar teeth. Cone Beam Computed
Tomography (CBCT) data obtained before (T1) and after (T2) intrusion were
evaluated through three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Intragroup assessment
of treatment-related variables were performed via “t-test in dependent samples”
and intergroup comparisons were assessed by “t-test in independent samples”.
Results: In patients who underwent intrusion of upper
incisors, permanent maxillary first molar teeth became deviated distally (1.48
mm/7.63 degree) only in CTA group, a statistically significant difference was
found between two groups (p<0.05). The distance between resistance centers
of maxillary first molar teeth was only increased in CTA group (0.31 mm), which
also statistically differed from MAIS group.
Conclusion: CTA and MAIS techniques
resulted in similar intrusive effects overall at the end of the treatment.
While MAIS is recommended when anchorage from posterior region is not desired
in patients with deep overbite, we believe that CTA may serve a suitable
treatment alternative where miniscrew technique could not be performed.
References
- 1. Van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IH. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006;129:658-665.
- 2. Lewis P. Correction of deep anterior overbite. A report of three cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1987;91:342-345.
- 3. Weiland FJ, Bantleon H-P, Droschl H. Evaluation of continuous arch and segmented arch leveling techniques in adult patients-a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1996;110:647-652.
- 4. Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod, 1977;72:1-22.
- 5. Polat-Özsoy Ö, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Veziroğlu F. Miniscrews for upper incisor intrusion. Eur J Orthod, 2009;31:412-416.
- 6. Lindauer SJ, Lewis SM, Shroff B. Overbite Correction and Smile Aesthetics. Semin Orthod, 2005;11:62-66.
- 7. Nanda R, Marzban R, Kuhlberg A. The Connecticut Intrusion Arch. J Clin Orthod, 1998;32:708-715.
- 8. Polat-Ozsoy O, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Veziroglu F, Cetinsahin A. Comparison of the intrusive effects of miniscrews and utility arches. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011;139:526-532.
- 9. Nanda R. Correction of deep overbite in adults. Dent Clin North Am, 1997;41:67-87.
- 10. Nanda R, Kuhlberg A. Management of Deep Overbite Malocclusion. In: Nanda R (eds). Biomechanics and Esthetic Strategies in Clinical Orthodontics, St. Louis, Missouri, Elsevier Saunders, 2005.
- 11. WR. P, HW. F, DM. S. Contemporary Orhodontics. 5th. ed. St. Louis, Missouri 63043, 2013.
- 12. Dermaut LR, Vanden Bulcke MM. Evaluation of intrusive mechanics of the type "segmented arch" on a macerated human skull using the laser reflection technique and holographic interferometry. Am J Orthod, 1986;89:251-263.
- 13. Zachrisson BU. Esthetic Factors Involved in Anterior Tooth Display and the Smile: Vertical Dimension. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 1998;32:432-445.
- 14. Ball JV, Hunt NP. The effect of Andresen, Harvold, and Begg treatment on overbite and molar eruption. Eur J Orthod, 1991;13:53-58.
- 15. Hans MG, Kishiyama C, Parker SH, Wolf GR, Noachtar R. Cephalometric evaluation of two treatment strategies for deep overbite correction. Angle Orthod, 1994;64:265-274; discussion 275-266.
- 16. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008;133:654-660.
- 17. Mitchell DL, Stewart WL. Documented leveling of the lower arch using metallic implants for reference. Am J Orthod, 1973;63:526-532.
- 18. Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs. Part I. Am J Orthod, 1976;70:241-268.
- 19. van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IHA. Influence of buccal segment size on prevention of side effects from incisor intrusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006;129:658-665.
- 20. Dake ML, Sinclair PM. A comparison of the Ricketts and Tweed-type arch leveling techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1989; 95:72-78.
- 21. Parker CD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Skeletal and dental changes associated with the treatment of deep bite malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1995;107:382-393.
- 22. Barton KA. Overbite changes in the Begg and edgewise techniques. Am J Orthod, 1972;62:48-55.
- 23. Upadhyay M, Nanda R. Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Deep Overbite. In: Dolan J (translate eds). R. Nanda SK (eds). Current Therapy in Orthodontics, 1th ed. Missouri, Mosby Elsevier, 2010;186-198.
- 24. Tosun Y. Sabit Ortodontik Apareylerin Biyomekanik Prensipleri. 1th ed. İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1999.
- 25. Otto RL, Anholm JM, Engel GA. A comparative analysis of intrusion of incisor teeth achieved in adults and children according to facial type. Am J Orthod, 1980;77:437-446.
- 26. Kinzel J, Aberschek P, Mischak I, Droschl H. Study of the extent of torque, protrusion and intrusion of the incisors in the context of Class II, division 2 treatment in adults. J Orofac Orthop, 2002;63:283-299.
- 27. Steenbergen Ev, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IHA. The Role of a High Pull Headgear in Counteracting Side Effects from Intrusion of the Maxillary Anterior Segment. Angle Orthod, 2004;74:480-486.
- 28. Upadhyay M, Nagaraj K, Yadav S, Saxena R. Mini-implants for en masse intrusion of maxillary anterior teeth in a severe Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod, 2008;35:79-89.
- 29. Amasyalı M, Sağdıç D, Ölmez H, Akın E. Intrusive Effects of the Connecticut Intrusion Arch and the Utility Intrusion Arch. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 2005;407-415.
- 30. Senisik NE, Turkkahraman H. Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012;141:723-733.
- 31. Sarver DM. Interactions of hard tissues, soft tissues, and growth over time, and their impact on orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2015;148:380-386.
- 32. Yeter MY. Diş-doku destekli ve kemik destekli molar distalizasyonu apareylerinin 3 boyutlu olarak karşılaştırılması. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2012.
- 33. Kurt E. İskeletsel sınıf III anomaliye sahip bireylerde diş-kemik destekli yüz maskesi tedavisinin kraniofasiyal yapılara etkilerinin konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografik görüntüleme yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Ortodonti Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2013.
- 34. Ates FN. Hızlı üst çene genişletmesinin kranio-fasiyal yapılara etkilerinin, konik ışınlı bilgisayarlı tomografi görüntüleme ve üç boyutlu sefalometri yöntemleri ile incelenmesi. Ortodonti Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2012.
- 35. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1983;382-390.
- 36. Proffit WR, RP W, Sarver DM. Long Face Problems. In:Proffit WR, RP W, Sarver DM (eds). Contemporary Treatment of Dentofacial Deformiy, St Louis, Mosby, 2003;464-506.
- 37. Şenışık NE. Derin Kapanışlı Vakaların İmplant ve İntrüzyon Arkları ile Tedavilerinin Karşılaştırılması. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü - Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı. Isparta: T.C. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, 2009.
- 38. Ohnishi H, Yagi T, Yasuda Y, Takada K. A Mini-Implant for Orthodontic Anchorage in a Deep Overbite Case. Angle Orthod, 2005;75:444-452.
- 39. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008;134:803-810.
- 40. Woods MG. The mechanics of lower incisor intrusion:Experiments in nongrowing baboons. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1988;93:186-195.
Details
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | August 31, 2017 |
| Submission Date | October 23, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017 |
Cited By
Thank Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry
Basma AlMaghlouth
https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S283102
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.