Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 25, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Comparison of two treatment protocols for intrusion and retraction of maxillary anterior teeth using mini-implants :
A Sumathi Felicita1, Shabeena Abdul Khader2
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, 162, Ponnamallee High Road, 600077, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. sumifeli@hotmail.com.
Objective:
The primary objective of this study was to compare the magnitude of incisor intrusion and retraction between two different treatment protocols and the secondary objective was to evaluate overall treatment effects.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty-four patients with proclined upper anterior teeth, increased overbite, and incisal show were randomly assigned to two treatment groups (G1 and G2). Upper first premolar extractions were performed in all cases. In G1, space closure was performed with conventional straight-wire friction mechanics with NiTi (nickel titanium) coil springs placed on 0.019″ × 0.025″ stainless steel wires in a 0.022 slot system with an additional intrusive force via a midline mini-implant. In G2, NiTi coil springs were placed from buccal mini-implants placed onto 0.016″ × 0.022″ SS wires in a 0.022 slot system bilaterally. Lateral cephalograms and study models taken at the beginning and at the end of 6 months of treatment were assessed.
Results:
Both groups showed a statistically significant mild maxillary incisor intrusion, reduction in overjet, overbite, incisal show and a reduction in lower anterior facial height. There was a mild intrusion of the maxillary first permanent molar in G2 (not significant). Mesial movement of the maxillary first permanent molar was noted in G1 but distal movement occurred in G2. Constriction of the entire maxillary arch was noted in G1, whereas constriction was seen in the molar region only in G2. Root resorption was noticed in both groups.
Conclusion:
Both groups produced comparable results. Except for molar control, all the results obtained were comparable between the two mechanics. Application of an intrusive force in the midline may be beneficial in patients treated with conventional straight-wire mechanics to treat increased overbite when anchorage requirement is not high.
