• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.289-298
• /
• 2015

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.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.3-14
• /
• 2013

Objective: To evaluate the factors that affect torque control during anterior retraction when utilizing the C-retractor with a palatal miniplate as an exclusive source of anchorage without posterior appliances. Methods: The C-retractor was modeled using a 3-dimensional beam element (0.9-mm-diameter stainless-steel wire) attached to mesh bonding pads. Various vertical heights and 2 attachment positions for the lingual anterior retraction hooks (LARHs) were evaluated. A force of 200 g was applied from each side hook of the miniplate to the splinted segment of 6 or 8 anterior teeth. Results: During anterior retraction, an increase in the LARH vertical height increased the amount of lingual root torque and intrusion of the incisors. In particular, with increasing vertical height, the tooth displacement pattern changed from controlled tipping to bodily displacement and then to lingual root displacement. The effects were enhanced when the LARH was located between the central and lateral incisors, as compared to when the LARH was located between the lateral incisors and canines. Conclusions: Three-dimensional lingual anterior retraction of the 6 or 8 anterior teeth can be accomplished using the palatal miniplate as the only anchorage source. Using LARHs at different heights or positions affects the quality of torque and intrusion.