• 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.

• 대한치과교정학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.26.2-26.2
• /
• 2001

• 대한치과교정학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.11a
• /
• pp.45.2-46
• /
• 1999

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.537-544
• /
• 2010

Anchorage control in orthodontic treatment is an important factor affecting treatment results. In the conventional approach, intra-oral anchorage such as application of differential force and moment, Nance holding arch and lingual arch, as well as extra-oral anchorage such as head gear were used for anchorage reinforcement. However, these anchorages may result in undesired tooth movement and require patient cooperation. To overcome these disadvantages, skeletal anchorage system was introduced as orthodontic anchorage. Types of skeletal anchorage include implant, onplant, miniplate and miniscrew. Especially, miniscrew has many advantages such as reduced patient cooperation, low cost and easy placement. Recently, it is successfully used in orthodontic treatment. This cases were treated using orthodontic miniscrews for retraction of ectopically erupting maxillary canine and impacted mandibular canine and intrusion of maxillary incisors.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.246-251
• /
• 2010

Impactions can occur because of malpositioning of the tooth bud or obstruction in the path of eruption. However, the exact mechanism is still unknown. The impaction of mandibular first molar is rare with prevalence rates of 0.01~0.25%, but it is important to deimpact the tooth as soon as possible to avoid complications such as dental caries, root resorption, and periodontal problems on the adjacent teeth. Several biomechanical strategies have been proposed for uprighting mesially tipped mandibular first molars. However, most of these have had problems with movement of the anchorage unit because of the reciprocal force. The recent development of skeletal anchorage system(SAS) allows direct application of precise force systems to the target tooth or segment, producing efficient tooth movement in a short time. In this case, an impacted mandibular left first molar with dilacerated roots was treated with a miniplate, which provided skeletal anchorage to upright the tooth. The miniplate was installed in the mandibular ramus, and 10 months after the application of orthodontic force, the impacted tooth was exposed in the oral cavity and uprighted. At this point, the mandibular left first molar was included in the orthodontic appliance with fixed mechanotherapy, the tooth could achieve a normal occlusion. Therefore, the use of SAS simplified the orthodontic procedures and reduced the orthodontic treatment period, and had few side effects.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.464-474
• /
• 2009

To distalize the maxillary molars, the traditional techniques such as extra-oral traction, Wilson distalizing arches, removable spring appliances and Schwarz plate-type appliances have been used. But, these need considerable patient cooperation. For minimal patient compliance, many practitioners use the pendulum appliances. Several clinical studies demonstrated pendulum is effective molar distalization appliance in the growing patient(using the premolars and the palate as anchorage). But unfortunately, maxillary anterior teeth also shift mesially as the molar moves distally. As a result anchorage loss is occurred. To overcome these disadvantages, we used bone-supported pendulum, combined the conventional pendulum with Skeletal Anchorage System(SAS). The miniscrew was implanted in the anterior paramedian region of the median palatal suture, which has comparatively sufficient bone thickness and is low risk to damage on the dental follicles. We report three cases, using bone-supported pendulum for the maxillary molar distalization in children. After treatment, we find out anchorage stability, minimal unfavorable anterior tooth movement and sufficient molar distalization.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.37 no.3 s.358
• /
• pp.170-173
• /
• 1999

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.37 no.4 s.359
• /
• pp.239-241
• /
• 1999

• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.245-248
• /
• 2003

The retraction of anterior teeth could be performed more easier by inducing of skeletal anchorage system rather than by conventional method on orthodontic treatment. But, we wonder how effective the system draws well without anchorage loss and draws anterior teeth aside posteriorly, and if the system can reduce the time, in comparison with the anchorage of posterior teeth. For that reason we have studied on the subject of patients, who were required the maximum anchorage on orthodontic treatment and the cases without crowding. The subjects of the experimental group are 35 areas of 20 people who were inserted miniscrews after Mx or Mn 1st premolar extracted. Also, the subjects of the control group are 81 areas of 45 people who were not inserted miniscrews. Compared the anchorage loss of experimental group with control one, we could get the result that the anchorage loss of experimental group is $1.034{\pm}0.891mm$ and control group is $2.790{\pm}1.882mm$(P<0.01). Compared the space closing time of experimental group with control one, we could get the result that the space closing time of experimental group is $369.40{\pm}110.81$days and control group is $406.56{\pm}231.63$days. But the result of comparing space closing time has no significance in statistics. We recognized that the experimental group is more faster than the control group in the canine retraction velocity from the result ; the speed of a experimental group has as much as $0.60{\pm}0.23mm/30days$ while the speed of a control group has $0.44{\pm}0.35mm/30days$(P<0.05). So, we could convince that orthodontic miniscrew is used effectively in the cases required the maximum anchorage.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.37 no.5 s.360
• /
• pp.305-309
• /
• 1999