Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants
Aim and Objective: This study aimed to compare the amount of maxillary incisor intrusion and root resorption using three methods: mini-implants, utility arches, and Connecticut intrusion arches. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients aged 15 to 25 years with deep bite were divided into three group...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1087_24 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841543539699220480 |
|---|---|
| author | Shilpa Vinu Virendra Vadher Arvind Nair Shalabh Baxi Shweta Singh Chhaya Barapatre |
| author_facet | Shilpa Vinu Virendra Vadher Arvind Nair Shalabh Baxi Shweta Singh Chhaya Barapatre |
| author_sort | Shilpa Vinu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim and Objective:
This study aimed to compare the amount of maxillary incisor intrusion and root resorption using three methods: mini-implants, utility arches, and Connecticut intrusion arches.
Materials and Methods:
Eighteen patients aged 15 to 25 years with deep bite were divided into three groups: 10 patients each for mini-implant, utility arch, and Connecticut intrusion arch groups. Bilateral mini-implants were used in Group 1, while utility and Connecticut arches were used in Groups 2 and 3, respectively. Intrusion was performed over four months. Lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms were taken at the start (T1) and after four months (T2).
Results:
The mean incisor intrusion measured by U1-PP was 2.08 mm in Group 1, 1.55 mm in Group 2, and 1.75 mm in Group 3 (P < 0.05). CR-PP measurements showed 1.91 mm in Group 1, 1.56 mm in Group 2, and 1.66 mm in Group 3 (P < 0.05). Incisors in Group 1 showed minimal protrusion compared to significant protrusion in Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). Maxillary molars showed no significant changes in Group 1 but distal tipping in Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). No root resorption was observed in any group.
Conclusion:
Mini-screws demonstrated the most effective maxillary incisor intrusion with minimal side effects compared to utility and Connecticut intrusion arches. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6b3b5cabacb249eb8e4a94216f5a2222 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0976-4879 0975-7406 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj-art-6b3b5cabacb249eb8e4a94216f5a22222025-01-13T10:16:10ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences0976-48790975-74062024-12-0116Suppl 4S3703S370510.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1087_24Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-ImplantsShilpa VinuVirendra VadherArvind NairShalabh BaxiShweta SinghChhaya BarapatreAim and Objective: This study aimed to compare the amount of maxillary incisor intrusion and root resorption using three methods: mini-implants, utility arches, and Connecticut intrusion arches. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients aged 15 to 25 years with deep bite were divided into three groups: 10 patients each for mini-implant, utility arch, and Connecticut intrusion arch groups. Bilateral mini-implants were used in Group 1, while utility and Connecticut arches were used in Groups 2 and 3, respectively. Intrusion was performed over four months. Lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms were taken at the start (T1) and after four months (T2). Results: The mean incisor intrusion measured by U1-PP was 2.08 mm in Group 1, 1.55 mm in Group 2, and 1.75 mm in Group 3 (P < 0.05). CR-PP measurements showed 1.91 mm in Group 1, 1.56 mm in Group 2, and 1.66 mm in Group 3 (P < 0.05). Incisors in Group 1 showed minimal protrusion compared to significant protrusion in Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). Maxillary molars showed no significant changes in Group 1 but distal tipping in Groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). No root resorption was observed in any group. Conclusion: Mini-screws demonstrated the most effective maxillary incisor intrusion with minimal side effects compared to utility and Connecticut intrusion arches.https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1087_24connecticut intrusion archdeep biteintrusionmini-implantsutility arch |
| spellingShingle | Shilpa Vinu Virendra Vadher Arvind Nair Shalabh Baxi Shweta Singh Chhaya Barapatre Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences connecticut intrusion arch deep bite intrusion mini-implants utility arch |
| title | Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants |
| title_full | Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants |
| title_short | Comparison of Intrusive Effects and Amount of Root Resorption in Maxillary Incisors Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini-Implants |
| title_sort | comparison of intrusive effects and amount of root resorption in maxillary incisors using two conventional intrusion arches and mini implants |
| topic | connecticut intrusion arch deep bite intrusion mini-implants utility arch |
| url | https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1087_24 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shilpavinu comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants AT virendravadher comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants AT arvindnair comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants AT shalabhbaxi comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants AT shwetasingh comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants AT chhayabarapatre comparisonofintrusiveeffectsandamountofrootresorptioninmaxillaryincisorsusingtwoconventionalintrusionarchesandminiimplants |