• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.280-290
• /
• 2012

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of conventional and orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage on tooth movement and arch-dimension changes in the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 (CII div.1) patients. Methods: CII div.1 patients treated with extraction of the maxillary first and mandibular second premolars and sliding mechanics were allotted to conventional anchorage group (CA, n = 12) or OMI anchorage group (OA, n = 12). Pre- and post-treatment three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed using the best-fit method. Linear, angular, and arch-dimension variables were measured with software program. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed for statistical analysis. Results: Compared to the CA group, the OMI group showed more backward movement of the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine (MXCI, MXLI, MXC, respectively; 1.6 mm, p < 0.001; 0.9 mm, p < 0.05; 1.2 mm, p < 0.001); more intrusion of the MXCI and MXC (1.3 mm, 0.5 mm, all p < 0.01); less forward movement of the maxillary second premolar, first, and second molars (MXP2, MXM1, MXM2, respectively; all 1.0 mm, all p < 0.05); less contraction of the MXP2 and MXM1 (0.7 mm, p < 0.05; 0.9 mm, p < 0.001); less mesial-in rotation of the MXM1 and MXM2 ($2.6^{\circ}$, $2.5^{\circ}$, all p < 0.05); and less decrease of the inter-MXP2, MXM1, and MXM2 widths (1.8 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, all p < 0.05). Conclusions: In treatment of CII div.1 malocclusion, OA provided better anchorage and less arch-dimension change in the maxillary posterior teeth than CA during en-masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.213-230
• /
• 2008

The aim of this study was to analyze the initial movement and the stress distribution of each tooth and periodontal ligament during the lingual lever-arm retraction of 6 maxillary incisors using FEA. Two kinds of finite element models were produced: 2-properties model (simple model) and 24-properties model (multi model) according to the material property assignment. The subject was an adult male of 23 years old. The DICOM images through the CT of the patient were converted into the 3D image model of a skull using the Mimics (version 10.11, Materialise's interactive Medical Image Control System, Materialise, Belgium). After series of calculating, remeshing, exporting, importing process and volume mesh process was performed, FEA models were produced. FEA models are consisted of maxilla, maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor, canine, periodontal ligaments and lingual traction arm. The boundary conditions fixed the movements of posterior, sagittal and upper part of the model to the directions of X, Y, Z axis respectively. The model was set to be symmetrical to X axis. Through the center of resistance of maxilla complex, a retraction force of 200g was applied horizontally to the occlusal plane. Under this conditions, the initial movements and stress distributions were evaluated by 3D FEA. In the result, the amount of posterior movement was larger in the multi model than in the simple model as well as the amount of vertically rotation. The pattern of the posterior movement in the central incisors and lateral incisors was controlled tipping movement, and the amount was larger than in the canine. But the amount of root movement of the canine was larger than others. The incisor rotated downwardly and the canines upwardly around contact points of lateral incisor and canine in the both models. The values of stress are similar in the both simple and multi model.