Author:
Hung Bui Quang,Hong Mihee,Kyung Hee-Moon,Kim Ho-Jin
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Objectives
To evaluate alveolar bone remodeling following incisor retraction treatment with microimplants and to examine the relationship between crown/root distal movement and thickness/height changes of the alveolus.
Materials and Methods
A total of 24 patients (mean age, 19.29 ± 4.64 years) with bialveolar protrusion treated by incisor retraction with microimplants were included. The distances of the crown and root tip movements as well as the thickness (alveolar bone thickness [ABT]; labial, lingual, and total) and vertical level (vertical bone level [VBL]; labial and lingual) of the alveolar bone were assessed using cone-beam computed tomography images obtained before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). All T1 and T2 variables were compared, and further comparisons of alveolar bone changes were conducted between the two groups based on the distance of the crown (low-crown-movement and high-crown-movement groups) and root movements (low-root-movement and high-root-movement groups). To determine the correlation of the crown or root movement with the variables of alveolar bone changes, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.
Results
Significant differences were found in all VBL and ABT variables after treatment in both jaws but not in total ABT. Based on the crown and root movements, alveolar bone change significantly differed between the root-movement groups, whereas there was no significant difference between the crown-movement groups. In addition, root movement showed significant correlations with the variables.
Conclusions
Remarkable changes in the height and thickness of alveolar bone were found after microimplant-aided incisor retraction treatment in all groups except for total ABT. Root movement was significantly correlated with the alveolar bone changes.
Publisher
The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation)
Reference21 articles.
1. Park
HS,
Bae
SM,
Kyung
HM,
Sung
JH.
Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion.
J Clin Orthod.
2001;
35:
417–
422.
2. Bae
SM,
Park
HS,
Kyung
HM,
Kwon
OW,
Sung
JH.
Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage.
J Clin Orthod.
2002;
36:
298–
302.
3. Xu
Y,
Xie
J.
Comparison of the effects of mini-implant and traditional anchorage on patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
Angle Orthod.
2017;
87:
320–
327.
4. Bae
SM,
Kim
HJ,
Kyung
HM.
Long-term changes of the anterior palatal alveolar bone after treatment with bialveolar protrusion, evaluated with computed tomography.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2018;
153:
108–
117.
5. Vardimon
AD,
Oren
E,
Ben-Bassat
Y.
Cortical bone remodeling/tooth movement ratio during maxillary incisor retraction with tip versus torque movements.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1998;
114:
520–
529.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献