Limits...
Mini-implants: new possibilities in interdisciplinary treatment approaches.

Sebastian B - Case Rep Dent (2014)

Bottom Line: The limits of fixed orthodontic treatment have become more a matter of facial appearance than anchorage.Many complex cases which would previously have required surgery or functional appliances can now be treated with fixed appliance therapy using mini-implants.A mutilated dentition case where mini-implants were used to provide anchorage for intrusion of molars and retraction of anterior teeth is reported here to illustrate this point.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Pushpagiri College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvalla, Kerala 689107, India.

ABSTRACT
The introduction of mini-implants has broadened the range of tooth movements possible by fixed appliance therapy alone. The limits of fixed orthodontic treatment have become more a matter of facial appearance than anchorage. Many complex cases which would previously have required surgery or functional appliances can now be treated with fixed appliance therapy using mini-implants. A mutilated dentition case where mini-implants were used to provide anchorage for intrusion of molars and retraction of anterior teeth is reported here to illustrate this point.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mid-treatment intraoral photographs: alignment stage with microimplants for lower anterior retraction.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4279878&req=5

fig3: Mid-treatment intraoral photographs: alignment stage with microimplants for lower anterior retraction.

Mentions: Treatment involved removal of upper first premolars and placement of mini-implants for lower anterior retraction and upper right second molar intrusion. The logic behind using mini-implants for lower anterior retraction was for anchorage due to missing lower first molars and lower right second molar. In addition, intrusion of 17 was required for placement of artificial substitute in the lower arch considering the level of extrusion of 17. Mini-implants of 1.3 mm × 8 mm (Absoanchor Mini-Implant, Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea) were used for this purpose. The implants were positioned palatally between 16 and 17 and buccally between 17 and 18. The palatal implant was placed 7 mm superior to gingival margin with care taken to avoid Greater Palatine Artery. The palatal mucosa was more fibrous and thicker than that on the buccal aspect. Figure 3 shows the positioning of mini-implants placed for lower anterior retraction. Retraction of upper and lower anteriors was done on 0.019′′ × 0.025′′ stainless steel wire with hooks. Retraction force was derived from 12 mm medium force NiTi close coil springs in lower arch and active tiebacks in upper arch.


Mini-implants: new possibilities in interdisciplinary treatment approaches.

Sebastian B - Case Rep Dent (2014)

Mid-treatment intraoral photographs: alignment stage with microimplants for lower anterior retraction.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4279878&req=5

fig3: Mid-treatment intraoral photographs: alignment stage with microimplants for lower anterior retraction.
Mentions: Treatment involved removal of upper first premolars and placement of mini-implants for lower anterior retraction and upper right second molar intrusion. The logic behind using mini-implants for lower anterior retraction was for anchorage due to missing lower first molars and lower right second molar. In addition, intrusion of 17 was required for placement of artificial substitute in the lower arch considering the level of extrusion of 17. Mini-implants of 1.3 mm × 8 mm (Absoanchor Mini-Implant, Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea) were used for this purpose. The implants were positioned palatally between 16 and 17 and buccally between 17 and 18. The palatal implant was placed 7 mm superior to gingival margin with care taken to avoid Greater Palatine Artery. The palatal mucosa was more fibrous and thicker than that on the buccal aspect. Figure 3 shows the positioning of mini-implants placed for lower anterior retraction. Retraction of upper and lower anteriors was done on 0.019′′ × 0.025′′ stainless steel wire with hooks. Retraction force was derived from 12 mm medium force NiTi close coil springs in lower arch and active tiebacks in upper arch.

Bottom Line: The limits of fixed orthodontic treatment have become more a matter of facial appearance than anchorage.Many complex cases which would previously have required surgery or functional appliances can now be treated with fixed appliance therapy using mini-implants.A mutilated dentition case where mini-implants were used to provide anchorage for intrusion of molars and retraction of anterior teeth is reported here to illustrate this point.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, Pushpagiri College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvalla, Kerala 689107, India.

ABSTRACT
The introduction of mini-implants has broadened the range of tooth movements possible by fixed appliance therapy alone. The limits of fixed orthodontic treatment have become more a matter of facial appearance than anchorage. Many complex cases which would previously have required surgery or functional appliances can now be treated with fixed appliance therapy using mini-implants. A mutilated dentition case where mini-implants were used to provide anchorage for intrusion of molars and retraction of anterior teeth is reported here to illustrate this point.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus