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

Dental cephalometric analysis, based on the angular and linear measurements. 1, The SN to the maxillary canine angle (SN-C); 2, the SN to the maxillary incisor angle (SN-U1); 3, the SN to the maxillary first molar angle (SN-U6); 4, the mandibular plane to mandibular incisor angle (MP-L1); 5, the mandibular plane to mandibular first molar angle (MP-L6); 6, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PTV-U1); 7, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary canine tip (PTV-C); 8, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PTV-U6); 9, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PP-U1); 10, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary canine tip (PP-C); 11, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PP-U6); 12, the distance between the mandibular lingual cortex and the mandibular first molar centroid (LC-L6); 13, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular incisor tip (MP-L1v); and 14, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular first molar centroid (MP-L6v). Refer Table 2 for definitions of the landmarks.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 4: Dental cephalometric analysis, based on the angular and linear measurements. 1, The SN to the maxillary canine angle (SN-C); 2, the SN to the maxillary incisor angle (SN-U1); 3, the SN to the maxillary first molar angle (SN-U6); 4, the mandibular plane to mandibular incisor angle (MP-L1); 5, the mandibular plane to mandibular first molar angle (MP-L6); 6, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PTV-U1); 7, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary canine tip (PTV-C); 8, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PTV-U6); 9, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PP-U1); 10, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary canine tip (PP-C); 11, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PP-U6); 12, the distance between the mandibular lingual cortex and the mandibular first molar centroid (LC-L6); 13, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular incisor tip (MP-L1v); and 14, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular first molar centroid (MP-L6v). Refer Table 2 for definitions of the landmarks.

Mentions: To focus on the treatment effects on the anterior and posterior teeth, cephalograms were analyzed by comparing the images of the initial status (T1) and the end of active retraction period (T2). Soft tissue, skeletal, and dental measurements have been explained in previous studies.71112 These measurements are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The definitions of cephalometric landmarks used in this study are shown in Table 2.


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)

Dental cephalometric analysis, based on the angular and linear measurements. 1, The SN to the maxillary canine angle (SN-C); 2, the SN to the maxillary incisor angle (SN-U1); 3, the SN to the maxillary first molar angle (SN-U6); 4, the mandibular plane to mandibular incisor angle (MP-L1); 5, the mandibular plane to mandibular first molar angle (MP-L6); 6, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PTV-U1); 7, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary canine tip (PTV-C); 8, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PTV-U6); 9, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PP-U1); 10, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary canine tip (PP-C); 11, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PP-U6); 12, the distance between the mandibular lingual cortex and the mandibular first molar centroid (LC-L6); 13, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular incisor tip (MP-L1v); and 14, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular first molar centroid (MP-L6v). Refer Table 2 for definitions of the landmarks.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 4: Dental cephalometric analysis, based on the angular and linear measurements. 1, The SN to the maxillary canine angle (SN-C); 2, the SN to the maxillary incisor angle (SN-U1); 3, the SN to the maxillary first molar angle (SN-U6); 4, the mandibular plane to mandibular incisor angle (MP-L1); 5, the mandibular plane to mandibular first molar angle (MP-L6); 6, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PTV-U1); 7, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary canine tip (PTV-C); 8, the distance between the pterygoid vertical plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PTV-U6); 9, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary incisor tip (PP-U1); 10, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary canine tip (PP-C); 11, the distance between the palatal plane and the maxillary first molar centroid (PP-U6); 12, the distance between the mandibular lingual cortex and the mandibular first molar centroid (LC-L6); 13, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular incisor tip (MP-L1v); and 14, the distance between the mandibular plane and the mandibular first molar centroid (MP-L6v). Refer Table 2 for definitions of the landmarks.
Mentions: To focus on the treatment effects on the anterior and posterior teeth, cephalograms were analyzed by comparing the images of the initial status (T1) and the end of active retraction period (T2). Soft tissue, skeletal, and dental measurements have been explained in previous studies.71112 These measurements are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The definitions of cephalometric landmarks used in this study are shown in Table 2.

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