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

Fatih Kahraman; Nihat Kılıç; İlhan Metin Dağsuyu

doi:10.7126/cumudj.345944

TR EN

Farklı Kesici İntrüzyon Mekaniklerinin Daimi Üst Birinci Molar Dişlere Etkilerinin Üç Boyutlu Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

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

Anahtar Kelimeler

Derin örtülü kapanış,intrüzyon,minivida,üç boyutlu sefalometrik analiz

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.

Keywords

Deep overbite,intrusion,miniscrew,three-dimensional cephalometric analysis

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

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Fatih Kahraman

Nihat Kılıç

İlhan Metin Dağsuyu

Publication Date

August 31, 2017

Submission Date

October 23, 2017

Acceptance Date

June 13, 2017

Published in Issue

Year 2017 Volume: 20 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.345944

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA47JU25XP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Kahraman F, Kılıç N, Dağsuyu İM (August 1, 2017) 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. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 20 2 88–96.

Cited By

Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion in deep-bite correction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Angle Orthodontist

https://doi.org/10.2319/061119-400.1

Thank Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry

https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S283102

Comparing the effect of miniscrew-supported and conventional maxillary incisor intrusion on the inclination of maxillary incisors and molars – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contemporary Clinical Dentistry

https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_385_22

Evaluation of different methods of correcting deep bite in adult and adolescent patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Progress in Orthodontics

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-025-00586-y