BioMed research international · 2022
Dynamics, Efficacies, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Full-Arch Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices (Miniscrews): A Finite Element Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mazhari Marzieh, Khanehmasjedi Mashallah, Mazhary Mohsen, Atashkar Nastaran, Rakhshan Vahid
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Absolute anchorages obtained from temporary anchorage devices (TADs, miniscrews) considerably facilitate dental movements and make some very difficult movements such as full-arch intrusions possible. Despite the significance of assessing strategies to fully intrude the arch using mini-implants, there is no study in this regard except a few case reports. Therefore, we simulated/tested 4 scenarios.
METHODS: Four maxilla models were created with different miniscrews/appliances: (1) two miniscrews were placed distal to laterals and one in the mid sagittal region. (2) Two mini-implants were inserted in mesial of canines and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars, plus another TAD in the midpalatal area, plus a transpalatal arch (TPA). (3) Two mini-implants were inserted between bilateral canines and first premolars and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars + TPA. (4) Two mini-implants were installed between lateral-and-canine and 2 miniscrews between second premolars and first molars + TPA. Intrusive forces (80 g anterior, 150 g posterior) were exerted using stainless-steel coil springs. Stresses/displacements were measured. Risk of external root resorption was evaluated.
RESULTS: The highest amounts of incisor/molar intrusion were seen in model 1. Model 2 had fewer intrusions, but its control over undesired movements was greater. Model 4 drastically reduced molar intrusion and considerably increased premolar intrusion. Overall amounts of intrusion were highest in the first 2 models, marking them as proper candidates for cases needing greater intrusion extents. Model 2 may be useful when miniscrew loosening/failure is a concern, while model 1 is recommended when fewer miniscrews are allowed. Overall, the highest and lowest root resorptions might occur in models 1 and 4, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Each model showed certain efficacies/drawbacks and thus is recommended for a particular set of cases. Therefore, depending on the diagnosis and treatment plan, one or more of these scenarios might be desirable.
METHODS: Four maxilla models were created with different miniscrews/appliances: (1) two miniscrews were placed distal to laterals and one in the mid sagittal region. (2) Two mini-implants were inserted in mesial of canines and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars, plus another TAD in the midpalatal area, plus a transpalatal arch (TPA). (3) Two mini-implants were inserted between bilateral canines and first premolars and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars + TPA. (4) Two mini-implants were installed between lateral-and-canine and 2 miniscrews between second premolars and first molars + TPA. Intrusive forces (80 g anterior, 150 g posterior) were exerted using stainless-steel coil springs. Stresses/displacements were measured. Risk of external root resorption was evaluated.
RESULTS: The highest amounts of incisor/molar intrusion were seen in model 1. Model 2 had fewer intrusions, but its control over undesired movements was greater. Model 4 drastically reduced molar intrusion and considerably increased premolar intrusion. Overall amounts of intrusion were highest in the first 2 models, marking them as proper candidates for cases needing greater intrusion extents. Model 2 may be useful when miniscrew loosening/failure is a concern, while model 1 is recommended when fewer miniscrews are allowed. Overall, the highest and lowest root resorptions might occur in models 1 and 4, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Each model showed certain efficacies/drawbacks and thus is recommended for a particular set of cases. Therefore, depending on the diagnosis and treatment plan, one or more of these scenarios might be desirable.