European Oral Research

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Review Article


DOI :10.17096/jiufd.52884   IUP :10.17096/jiufd.52884    Full Text (PDF)

MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Yasas Shri Nalaka Jayaratne, Flavio Urıbe, Nandakumar Janakıraman

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the antero-posterior, vertical and angular changes of maxillary incisors with conventional anchorage control techniques and mini-implant based space closure methods. 

Materials and Methods: The electronic databases Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library and Open Grey were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords. Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria as well as their references were manually searched. The primary outcome data (linear, angular, and vertical maxillary incisor changes) and secondary outcome data (overbite changes, soft tissue changes, biomechanical factors, root resorption and treatment duration) were extracted from the selected articles and entered into spreadsheets based on the type of anchorage used. The methodological quality of each study was assessed. 

Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The amount of incisor retraction was greater with buccally placed mini-implants than conventional anchorage techniques. The incisor retraction with indirect anchorage from palatal mini-implants was less when compared with buccally placed mini-implants. Incisor intrusion occurred with buccal mini-implants, whereas extrusion was seen with conventional anchorage. Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies. 

Conclusion: More RCT’s that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on incisor changes during space closure.

Keywords: Maxillary incisors, mini-implant, retraction, anchorage, systematic review
DOI :10.17096/jiufd.52884   IUP :10.17096/jiufd.52884    Full Text (PDF)

Retraksiyon Sırasında Mini-İmplant Destekli Ankrajın Maksiller Kesici Pozisyona Etkisi - Sistematik Bir Derleme

Yasas Shri Nalaka Jayaratne, Flavio Urıbe, Nandakumar Janakıraman

Amaç: Bu sistematik derlemenin amacı, konvansiyonel ankraj kontrol teknikleri ve mini implant destekli boşluk kapatma yöntemleri ile maksiller kesici dişlerin antero-posterior, vertikal ve açısal değişimlerini karşılaştırmaktır. 

Gereç ve Yöntem: Önceden belirlenmiş bir dizi anahtar kelime ile, Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library ve Open Grey gibi elektronik veritabanlarında, potansiyel olarak uygun çalışmalar açısından araştırma yapıldı. Tam metnine ulaşılabilen makaleler inceleme kapsamına alındı ve ayrıca referansları manuel olarak araştırıldı. Seçilen makalelerden birincil sonuç verisi (maksiller kesicilerde doğrusal, açısal ve dikey değişiklikler) ve ikincil sonuç verisi (overbite değişiklikleri, yumuşak doku değişiklikleri, biyomekanik faktörler, kök rezorpsiyonu ve tedavi süresi) çıkarılarak kullanılan ankraj türüne göre tablolara girildi. Her çalışmanın metodolojik kalitesi değerlendirildi. 

Bulgular: Altı çalışma içerik kriterlerini karşıladı. Bukkal mini implantlarla sağlanan kesici retraksiyonu miktarı, geleneksel ankraj tekniklerine göre daha fazladır. Palatal mini-implantlar ile yapılan indirekt ankrajda kesici retraksiyonu, bukkal mini-implantlarla karşılaştırıldığında daha düşüktür. Bukkal mini implantlarla kesici intrüzyonu ortaya çıkarken, ekstrüzyon geleneksel ankraj ile görüldü. Bu çalışmalarda biyomekanik değişkenler veya kök rezorpsiyonu gibi yan etkiler hakkında sınırlı veri bildirilmiştir. 

Sonuç: Boşluk kapatma sırasında kesici değişiklikleri hakkında bilgi vermek için, konuyla ilgili biyomekanik değişkenleri dikkate alan ve diş hareketlerinin üç boyutlu kantifikasyonunu kullanan daha fazla randomize kontrollü çalışma gereklidir. 
Keywords: Maksiller kesiciler, mini-implant, retraksiyon, ankraj, sistematik derleme

PDF View

References

  • • Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: Traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75(3):333-339. google scholar
  • • Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(1):28-37. google scholar
  • • Guo Y, Han X, Xu H, Ai D, Zeng H, Bai D. Morphological characteristics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for angle's class II division 1 malocclusions. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):44. google scholar
  • • Janson G, Brambilla Ada C, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, Neves LS. Class ii treatment success rate in 2- and 4-premolar extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(4):472-479. google scholar
  • • Markic G, Katsaros C, Pandis N, Eliades T. Temporary anchorage device usage: A survey among swiss orthodontists. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):29. google scholar
  • • Tan TJ. Profile changes following orthodontic correction of bimaxillary protrusion with a preadjusted edgewise appliance. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11(3):239-251. google scholar
  • • Zablocki HL, McNamara JA, Jr., Franchi L, Baccetti T. Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(6):852-860. google scholar
  • • Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):30-35. google scholar
  • • Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss--a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod 2003;73(6):730-737. google scholar
  • • Davoody AR, Posada L, Utreja A, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Uribe F, Nanda R. A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(5):568-576. google scholar
  • • Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):493-501. google scholar
  • • Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson PE, Skeggs RM, O’Brien KD. Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. google scholar
  • • Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(5):615-624. google scholar
  • • Tominaga JY, Chiang PC, Ozaki H, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Bourauel C, Yoshida N. Effect of play between bracket and archwire on anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Dent Biomech 2012;3:1758736012461269. google scholar
  • • Tominaga JY, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Gonzales C, Kobayashi M, Yoshida N. Optimal loading conditions for controlled movement of anterior teeth in sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod 2009;79(6):1102-1107. google scholar
  • • Li F, Hu HK, Chen JW, Liu ZP, Li GF, He SS, Zou SJ, Ye QS. Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81(5):915-922. google scholar
  • • http://www.prisma-statement.org/. google scholar
  • • www.opengrey.eu/. google scholar
  • • Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods G, Cochrane Statistical Methods G. The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. google scholar
  • • Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane: Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. google scholar
  • • Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The quorom statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354(9193):1896-1900. google scholar
  • • Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2014;36(3):275-283. google scholar
  • • Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage--a randomized clinical trial: Cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(5):606-615. google scholar
  • • Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(3):339 e319-328. google scholar
  • • Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36(9):687-695. google scholar
  • • Ma J, Wang L, Zhang W, Chen W, Zhao C, Smales RJ. Comparative evaluation of micro-implant and headgear anchorage used with a pre-adjusted appliance system. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(3):283-287. google scholar
  • • Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):18-29 e11. google scholar
  • • Thiruvenkatachari B, Al-Abdallah M, Akram NC, Sandler J, O'Brien K. Measuring 3-dimensional tooth movement with a 3-dimensional surface laser scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4):480-485. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Jayaratne, Y., Urıbe, F., & Janakıraman, N. (2017). MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. European Oral Research, 51(3), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


AMA

Jayaratne Y, Urıbe F, Janakıraman N. MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. European Oral Research. 2017;51(3):90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


ABNT

Jayaratne, Y.; Urıbe, F.; Janakıraman, N. MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. European Oral Research, [Publisher Location], v. 51, n. 3, p. 90-101, 2017.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Jayaratne, Yasas Shri Nalaka, and Flavio Urıbe and Nandakumar Janakıraman. 2017. “MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.” European Oral Research 51, no. 3: 90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


Chicago: Humanities Style

Jayaratne, Yasas Shri Nalaka, and Flavio Urıbe and Nandakumar Janakıraman. “MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.” European Oral Research 51, no. 3 (May. 2024): 90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


Harvard: Australian Style

Jayaratne, Y & Urıbe, F & Janakıraman, N 2017, 'MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW', European Oral Research, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 90-101, viewed 5 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Jayaratne, Y. and Urıbe, F. and Janakıraman, N. (2017) ‘MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW’, European Oral Research, 51(3), pp. 90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884 (5 May. 2024).


MLA

Jayaratne, Yasas Shri Nalaka, and Flavio Urıbe and Nandakumar Janakıraman. “MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.” European Oral Research, vol. 51, no. 3, 2017, pp. 90-101. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884


Vancouver

Jayaratne Y, Urıbe F, Janakıraman N. MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. European Oral Research [Internet]. 5 May. 2024 [cited 5 May. 2024];51(3):90-101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884 doi: 10.17096/jiufd.52884


ISNAD

Jayaratne, Yasas Shri Nalaka - Urıbe, Flavio - Janakıraman, Nandakumar. “MAXILLARY INCISORS CHANGES DURING SPACE CLOSURE WITH CONVENTIONAL AND SKELETAL ANCHORAGE METHODS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW”. European Oral Research 51/3 (May. 2024): 90-101. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.52884



TIMELINE


Submitted10.09.2017
Accepted18.10.2017

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.