Limits...
Displacement pattern of the anterior segment using antero-posterior lingual retractor combined with a palatal plate.

Seo KW, Kwon SY, Kim KA, Park KH, Kim SH, Ahn HW, Nelson G - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: The APLR group had less angulation change in the anterior dentition, compared to the CLR group.By changing the tube angulation in the APLR, the intrusive force significantly increased in the distally tipped tube of group 3 patients and remarkably reduced the occlusal plane angle.Furthermore, changing the tube angulation will affect the amount of incisor intrusion, even in patients with similar palatal vault depth, without the need for additional TSADs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effects of two appliances on the en masse retraction of the anterior teeth anchored by temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs).

Methods: The sample comprised 46 nongrowing hyperdivergent adult patients who planned to undergo upper first premolar extraction using lingual retractors. They were divided into three groups, based on the lingual appliance used: the C-lingual retractor (CLR) group (group 1, n = 16) and two antero-posterior lingual retractor (APLR) groups (n = 30, groups 2 and 3). The APLR group was divided by the posterior tube angulation; posterior tube parallel to the occlusal plane (group 2, n = 15) and distally tipped tube (group 3, n = 15). A retrospective clinical investigation of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue relationships was performed using lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained pretreatment and post en masse retraction of the anterior teeth.

Results: All groups achieved significant incisor and canine retraction. The upper posterior teeth did not drift significantly during the retraction period. The APLR group had less angulation change in the anterior dentition, compared to the CLR group. By changing the tube angulation in the APLR, the intrusive force significantly increased in the distally tipped tube of group 3 patients and remarkably reduced the occlusal plane angle.

Conclusions: Compared to the CLR, the APLR provides better anterior torque control and canine tipping while achieving bodily translation. Furthermore, changing the tube angulation will affect the amount of incisor intrusion, even in patients with similar palatal vault depth, without the need for additional TSADs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Schematic illustrations of the appliance in each group (lateral view; left column); lateral cephalograms at pretreatment and post en masse retraction (middle column); and maxillary superimposition (right column). A, The C-lingual retractor group (i.e., group 1) had clockwise rotation of the anterior segment during retraction. B, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with parallel tube group (i.e., group 2) had intrusion of the anterior segment with less clockwise moment. C, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with distally tipped tube group (i.e., group 3) had the greatest amount of intrusion on the anterior segment. Extrusion of the posterior segments did not occur in group 2 or group 3.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664905&req=5

Figure 2: Schematic illustrations of the appliance in each group (lateral view; left column); lateral cephalograms at pretreatment and post en masse retraction (middle column); and maxillary superimposition (right column). A, The C-lingual retractor group (i.e., group 1) had clockwise rotation of the anterior segment during retraction. B, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with parallel tube group (i.e., group 2) had intrusion of the anterior segment with less clockwise moment. C, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with distally tipped tube group (i.e., group 3) had the greatest amount of intrusion on the anterior segment. Extrusion of the posterior segments did not occur in group 2 or group 3.

Mentions: The CLR was fabricated with a 0.036-inch stainless steel wire that splinted lingually bonded meshes on the six anterior teeth as one unit (Figure 2A). It included a retractor arm length that was designed to steer the force vector through the center of resistance during the retraction.11 The C-plates were used as the sole source of anchorage. There was no posterior appliance. The reference for the detailed treatment method has been explained in previous articles.567


Displacement pattern of the anterior segment using antero-posterior lingual retractor combined with a palatal plate.

Seo KW, Kwon SY, Kim KA, Park KH, Kim SH, Ahn HW, Nelson G - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Schematic illustrations of the appliance in each group (lateral view; left column); lateral cephalograms at pretreatment and post en masse retraction (middle column); and maxillary superimposition (right column). A, The C-lingual retractor group (i.e., group 1) had clockwise rotation of the anterior segment during retraction. B, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with parallel tube group (i.e., group 2) had intrusion of the anterior segment with less clockwise moment. C, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with distally tipped tube group (i.e., group 3) had the greatest amount of intrusion on the anterior segment. Extrusion of the posterior segments did not occur in group 2 or group 3.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664905&req=5

Figure 2: Schematic illustrations of the appliance in each group (lateral view; left column); lateral cephalograms at pretreatment and post en masse retraction (middle column); and maxillary superimposition (right column). A, The C-lingual retractor group (i.e., group 1) had clockwise rotation of the anterior segment during retraction. B, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with parallel tube group (i.e., group 2) had intrusion of the anterior segment with less clockwise moment. C, The antero-posterior lingual retractor with distally tipped tube group (i.e., group 3) had the greatest amount of intrusion on the anterior segment. Extrusion of the posterior segments did not occur in group 2 or group 3.
Mentions: The CLR was fabricated with a 0.036-inch stainless steel wire that splinted lingually bonded meshes on the six anterior teeth as one unit (Figure 2A). It included a retractor arm length that was designed to steer the force vector through the center of resistance during the retraction.11 The C-plates were used as the sole source of anchorage. There was no posterior appliance. The reference for the detailed treatment method has been explained in previous articles.567

Bottom Line: The APLR group had less angulation change in the anterior dentition, compared to the CLR group.By changing the tube angulation in the APLR, the intrusive force significantly increased in the distally tipped tube of group 3 patients and remarkably reduced the occlusal plane angle.Furthermore, changing the tube angulation will affect the amount of incisor intrusion, even in patients with similar palatal vault depth, without the need for additional TSADs.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effects of two appliances on the en masse retraction of the anterior teeth anchored by temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs).

Methods: The sample comprised 46 nongrowing hyperdivergent adult patients who planned to undergo upper first premolar extraction using lingual retractors. They were divided into three groups, based on the lingual appliance used: the C-lingual retractor (CLR) group (group 1, n = 16) and two antero-posterior lingual retractor (APLR) groups (n = 30, groups 2 and 3). The APLR group was divided by the posterior tube angulation; posterior tube parallel to the occlusal plane (group 2, n = 15) and distally tipped tube (group 3, n = 15). A retrospective clinical investigation of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue relationships was performed using lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained pretreatment and post en masse retraction of the anterior teeth.

Results: All groups achieved significant incisor and canine retraction. The upper posterior teeth did not drift significantly during the retraction period. The APLR group had less angulation change in the anterior dentition, compared to the CLR group. By changing the tube angulation in the APLR, the intrusive force significantly increased in the distally tipped tube of group 3 patients and remarkably reduced the occlusal plane angle.

Conclusions: Compared to the CLR, the APLR provides better anterior torque control and canine tipping while achieving bodily translation. Furthermore, changing the tube angulation will affect the amount of incisor intrusion, even in patients with similar palatal vault depth, without the need for additional TSADs.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus