• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.371-378
• /
• 2011

Transposition is defined as a dental anomaly manifested by a positional interchange of 2 adjacent teeth within the same quadrant of the dental arch. Maxillary canine-first premolar [Mx4-3] transposition is the most frequent tooth transposition reported in the literature. In this case report, an orthodontic correction of a transposition of the maxillary left canine and first premolar with the help of palatally located mini-implant anchorage is described. Esthetic and occlusal evaluations suggested alignment of the transposed teeth to their correct anatomic positions in the dental arch. The clinical result at the end of the treatment was satisfactory. Alignment was obtained, and intercuspation was adequate. Nevertheless, the maxillary canine showed facial recession, probably because it was initially positioned buccally. Supporting tissue was examined after treatment and no alveolar bone damage was observed.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2010

This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022" slot, .019X.025" stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). A total of 11 anchorage variables were measured. Analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in treatment duration and anchorage variables at T0 among the three groups. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly larger retraction of the upper incisor edge (U1E-sag, 9.3mm:7.3mm, P<.05) and less posterior anchorage loss (U6M-sag, 0.7~0.9mm:2mm, P<.05; U6A-sag, 0.5mm:2mm, P<.01) than Group 1. The ratio of retraction amount of the upper incisor edge per 1 of anchorage loss in the upper molar made for the significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (4.6mm:7.0mm, P<.05). Group 3 showed a relatively distal inclination of the upper molar (P<.05) and the intrusion of the upper incisor and first molar (U1E-ver, P<.05; U6F-ver, P<.05) compared to Groups 1 and 2. Although OMI could not shorten the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum posterior anchorage than CAR.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.388-396
• /
• 2006

Treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with mini-implant anchorage is discussed in relation to vertical control of the maxillary posterior dentoalveolar region and horizontal control of mandibular anterior teeth. A midpalatal mini-implant provided anchorage for intruding the maxillary posterior teeth. Mandibular mini-Implant implants were used to bring about labioversion of mandibular anterior teeth. After mandibular setback surgery, improvement of the facial profile was obtained both horizontally and vertically, Total treatment time was 11 months. Stable occlusion was maintained after 18 months of retention, The effectiveness and efficacy of mini-implants for the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion are also discussed.

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.249-255
• /
• 2002

Recently, Skeletal Anchorage System (SAS) has been focused clinically with the view point that it could provide the absolute intraoral anchorage. First, it began to be used for the patient of orthognathic surgery who had difficulty in taking intermaxillary fixation due to multiple loss of teeth. And then, its uses have been extended to many cases, the control of bone segments after orthognathic surgery, stable anchorage in orthodontic treatment, and anchorage for temporary prosthesis and so on. SAS has been developed as dental implants technique has been developed and also called in several names; mini-screw anchorage, micro-screw anchorage, mini-implant anchorage, micro-implant anchorage (MIA), and orthosystem implant etc. Now many clinicians use SAS, but the anatomical knowledges for the installed depth of intraosseous screws are totally dependent on general experiences. So we try to study for the cortical thickness of maxilla and mandible in Korean adults without any pathologic conditions with the use of Computed Tomography at the representative sites for the screw installation.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.177-183
• /
• 2014

Objective: To determine the unique contribution of geometrical design characteristics of orthodontic mini-implants on maximum insertion torque while controlling for the influence of cortical bone thickness. Methods: Total number of 100 cylindrical orthodontic mini-implants was used. Geometrical design characteristics of ten specimens of ten types of cylindrical self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants (Ortho Easy$^{(R)}$, Aarhus, and Dual Top$^{TM}$) with diameters ranging from 1.4 to 2.0 mm and lengths of 6 and 8 mm were measured. Maximum insertion torque was recorded during manual insertion of mini-implants into bone samples. Cortical bone thickness was measured. Retrieved data were analyzed in a multiple regression model. Results: Significant predictors for higher maximum insertion torque included larger outer diameter of implant, higher lead angle of thread, and thicker cortical bone, and their unique contribution to maximum insertion torque was 12.3%, 10.7%, and 24.7%, respectively. Conclusions: The maximum insertion torque values are best controlled by choosing an implant diameter and lead angle according to the assessed thickness of cortical bone.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.280-289
• /
• 2016

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze tooth movement and arch width changes in maxillary dentition following nonextraction treatment with orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage in Class II division 1 malocclusions. Methods: Seventeen adult patients diagnosed with Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated by nonextraction with OMIs as anchorage for distalization of whole maxillary dentition. Three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed with the best-fit method at the pretreatment and post-treatment stages. Linear, angular, and arch width variables were measured using Rapidform 2006 software, and analyzed by the paired t -test. Results: All maxillary teeth showed statistically significant movement posteriorly (p < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the vertical position of the maxillary teeth, except that the second molars were extruded (0.86 mm, p < 0.01). The maxillary first and second molars were rotated distal-in ($4.5^{\circ}$, p < 0.001; $3.0^{\circ}$, p < 0.05, respectively). The intersecond molar width increased slightly (0.1 mm, p > 0.05) and the intercanine, interfirst premolar, intersecond premolar, and interfirst molar widths increased significantly (2.2 mm, p < 0.01; 2.2 mm, p < 0.05; 1.9 mm, p < 0.01; 2.0 mm, p < 0.01; respectively). Conclusions: Nonextraction treatment with OMI anchorage for Class II division 1 malocclusions could retract the whole maxillary dentition to achieve a Class I canine and molar relationship without a change in the vertical position of the teeth; however, the second molars were significantly extruded. Simultaneously, the maxillary arch was shown to be expanded with distal-in rotation of the molars.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.305-314
• /
• 2007

Interdisciplinary treatment of Class III malocclusion with congenital missing of unilateral maxillary canine and anterior crossbite is discussed focusing on a problem-oriented treatment planning, treatment progress, and treatment result. Maxillary mini-implant provided anchorage for distalization of the maxillary right porsterior dentition. Mandibular mini-implants were used to distalize the whole mandibular dentition. Total treatment time was 17 months to achieve a successful treatment goal. Stable occlusion was maintained after 12 months of retention.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.33 no.3 s.98
• /
• pp.151-156
• /
• 2003

To provide some guideline for microscrew implants, 73 patients that received a total of 180 mini- or microscrew implants were scrutinized. The overall success rate was $93.3\%$ (168 among 180 mini- or microscrew implants) and the mean period of utilization was 15.8 months. Microscrew implants in the UB group (maxillary buccal area) succeeded at a rate of $94.6\%$ (87 among 92), mini- or microscrew implants in the LB group (mandibular buccal area) succeeded $96.6\%$ of the time (56 out of 58), while microscrew implants in the UP group (maxillary palatal area) had a $100\%$ success rate (11 out of 11), and mini- or microscrew implants in the LR group (retromolar area) succeeded in $73.7\%$ of cases (14 among 19). This study might indicate that microscrew implants can be used successfully as orthodontic anchorage in daily orthodontic practice.

• 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 the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.240-245
• /
• 2015

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate patterns of failure time after insertion, failure rate according to loading time after insertion, and the patterns of failure after loading. Materials and Methods: A total of 331 mini-implants were classified into the non-failure group (NFG) and failure group (FG), which was divided into failed group before loading (FGB) and failed group after loading (FGA). Orthodontic force was applied to both the NFG and FGA. Failed mini-implants after insertion, ratio of FGA to NFG according to loading time after insertion, and failed mini-implants according to failed time after loading were analyzed. Results: Percentages of failed mini-implants after insertion were 15.79%, 36.84%, 12.28%, and 10.53% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Mini-implant failure demonstrated a peak from 4 to 5 weeks after insertion. The failure rates according to loading time after insertion were 13.56%, 8.97%, 11.32%, and 5.00% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Percentages of failed mini-implants after loading were 13.79%, 24.14%, 20.69%, and 6.9% at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Conclusion: Mini-implant stability is typically acquired 12 to 16 weeks after insertion, and immediate loading can cause failure of the mini-implant. Failure after loading was observed during the first 12 weeks.