Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Dec 19;23(1):46.
doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00441-4.

Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary tooth movement in extraction patients with three different miniscrew anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial

Liwen Zhang #  1 , Runzhi Guo #  2 , Baohua Xu  1 , Yue Wang  1 , Weiran Li  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary tooth movement in extraction patients with three different miniscrew anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial

Liwen Zhang et al. Prog Orthod. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare the three-dimensional (3-D) movement of maxillary teeth in response to three common miniscrew anchorage systems in extraction patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

Materials and methods: The study employed a randomized controlled single-blinded design with three arms. Thirty extraction patients who required maximum anchorage to retract maxillary anterior teeth were included and randomly allocated into three treatment groups: space closure with direct miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (DL group), indirect miniscrew anchorage and low crimpable hooks (IL group), and direct miniscrew anchorage and high crimpable hooks (DH group). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of all included patients were obtained immediately before (T0) and after (T1) space closure. The outcomes were 3-D positional changes of maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, second premolar, and first molar. The repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc LSD test was used to evaluate differences among groups.

Results: A significant intrusion (- 1.34 mm; 95% CI, - 1.60 mm, 1.08 mm) and buccal (- 6.92°; 95% CI, - 8.67°, - 5.13°) and distal (4.90°; 95% CI, 3.75°, 6.04°) inclination of the maxillary first molars were observed in the DL group, compared to the other two groups. The mesial movement (- 0.40 mm; 95% CI, - 0.83 mm, - 0.03 mm) of the maxillary first molars was found in the IL group, while the DL (0.44 mm; 95% CI, 0.15 mm, 0.73 mm) and IL (0.62 mm; 95% CI, 0.28 mm, 0.96 mm) groups exhibited distal movement. In the DH group, the lingual inclination changes of maxillary central incisor (5.04°; 95% CI, 2.82°, 7.26°) were significantly lower, which is indicative of good lingual root torque control of the maxillary anterior teeth.

Conclusion: Three miniscrew anchorage systems produced significantly different 3-D maxillary tooth movement. The maxillary first molars were significantly buccally and distally inclined and intruded in patients using direct miniscrew anchorages with low crimpable hooks. Direct miniscrew anchorages with high crimpable hooks could help to achieve better lingual root torque control of the maxillary incisors. Trial registration The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900026960). Registered 27 October 2019.

Keywords: Cone beam computed tomography; Maxillary tooth movement; Miniscrew; Randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration of three miniscrew anchorage systems: A Direct miniscrew anchorages with low crimpable hooks (DL group); B indirect miniscrew anchorages with low crimpable hooks (IL group); C direct miniscrew anchorages with high crimpable hooks (DH group)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Voxel-based superimposition of pre-retraction and post-retraction CBCT based on the maxillary region. A The coronal, B sagittal, C axial and D 3-D frontal view of superimposition
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
CONSORT flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O. En-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth in adult patients with maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(1):113–127. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2485. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chung KR, Nelson G, Kim SH, Kook YA. Severe bidentoalveolar protrusion treated with orthodontic microimplant-dependent en-masse retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(1):105–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xu Y, Xie J. Comparison of the effects of mini-implant and traditional anchorage on patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(2):320–327. doi: 10.2319/051016-375.1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C, Wilmes B, Wolf M, Drescher D. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2018;4(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ozkan S, Bayram M. Comparison of direct and indirect skeletal anchorage systems combined with 2 canine retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(5):763–770. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.023. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources