Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2026
07:16
Finite Element Analysis Model for Assessing Expansion Patterns from Surgically Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion
Published on: October 20, 2023
Maxillary Arch Intrusion With Temporary Anchorage Devices Versus Conventional Intrusion Arches: A Systematic Review
Aparna Khamatkar1, Aditi Sawtekar1, Karthick Shetty1
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D. Y. Patil Deemed to be University, School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Cureus
|June 29, 2026
Summary
Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) show promise for maxillary incisor intrusion in deep bite correction, offering faster intrusion rates and better overbite reduction than conventional arches. However, treatment duration and adverse effects require further investigation.
Area of Science:
- Orthodontics
- Dental Mechanics
- Biomaterials
Background:
- Deep bite correction frequently necessitates maxillary incisor intrusion.
- Both temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and conventional intrusion arches are employed for this orthodontic procedure.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of TAD-supported maxillary arch intrusion versus conventional intrusion arches for maxillary incisor intrusion in patients with deep bite or Class II malocclusion.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across major databases (PubMed, PMC/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, DOAJ) up to December 31, 2025.
- Included studies were randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative clinical studies comparing TADs with conventional intrusion arches.
- Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quantitative synthesis were performed.
Main Results:
- Nine studies (3 RCTs, 6 non-randomized) met the criteria. Both methods achieved intrusion and deep bite reduction.
- TAD-supported intrusion showed favorable pooled results for intrusion rate (SMD 1.18), incisor intrusion amount (SMD -0.88), and overbite correction (SMD -0.48).
- No significant difference in treatment duration was found; TADs offered better anchorage preservation, while conventional arches risked molar extrusion and incisor proclination.
Conclusions:
- TAD-supported intrusion appears more effective for specific intrusion outcomes compared to conventional arches, despite similar treatment durations.
- Potential adverse effects with TADs and low certainty of evidence necessitate further high-quality, long-term research.
- Conventional intrusion arches may lead to unwanted side effects like molar extrusion and incisor proclination.