Comparison of anchorage reinforcement with temporary anchorage devices or a Herbst appliance during lingual orthodontic protraction of mandibular molars without maxillary counterbalance extraction

Head & Face Medicine

Dirk Wiechmann²  Hans-Joachim Helms³  Rainer Schwestka-Polly¹  Rebecca Metzner¹ 

[1] Department of Orthodontics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany;Private Practice, Bad Essen, Germany;Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

关键词: Lingual orthodontics;    Herbst appliance;    TAD;    Anchorage reinforcement;    Orthodontic molar protraction;   

Others  :  1219622
DOI  :  10.1186/s13005-015-0079-4

 received in 2015-04-15, accepted in 2015-06-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Orthodontic protraction of mandibular molars without maxillary counterbalance extraction in cases of aplasia or extraction requires stable anchorage. Reinforcement may be achieved by using either temporary anchorage devices (TAD) or a fixed, functional appliance. The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of both methods by testing the null-hypothesis of no significant difference in velocity of space closure (in mm/month) between them. In addition, we set out to describe the quality of posterior space management and treatment-related factors, such as loss of anchorage (assessed in terms of proportions of gap closure by posterior protraction or anterior retraction), frequencies of incomplete space closure, and potential improvement in the sagittal canine relationship.

Methods

Twenty-seven subjects (15 male/12 female) with a total of 36 sites treated with a lingual multi-bracket appliance were available for retrospective evaluation of the effects of anchorage reinforcement achieved with either a Herbst appliance (n _subjects  = 15; 7 both-sided/8 single-sided Herbst appliances; n _sites  = 22) or TADs (n _subjects  = 12; 2 both-sided; 10 single-sided; n _sites  = 14). Descriptive analysis was based on measurements using intra-oral photographs which were individually scaled to corresponding plaster casts and taken on insertion of anchorage mechanics (T1), following removal of anchorage mechanics (T2), and at the end of multi-bracket treatment (T3).

Results

The null-hypothesis was rejected: The rate of mean molar protraction was significantly faster in the Herbst-reinforced group (0.51 mm/month) than in the TAD group (0.35). While complete space closure by sheer protraction of posterior teeth was achieved in all Herbst-treated cases, space closure in the TAD group was achieved in 76.9 % of subjects by sheer protraction of molars, and it was incomplete in 50 % of cases (mean gap residues: 1 mm). Whilst there was a deterioration in the canine relationship towards Angle-Class II malocclusion in 57.14 % of space closure sites in TAD-treated subjects (indicating a loss of anchorage), an improvement in canine occlusion was observed in 90.9 % of Herbst-treated cases.

Conclusion

Subjects requiring rapid space closure by molar protraction in combination with a correction of distal occlusion may benefit from using Herbst appliances for anterior segment anchorage reinforcement rather than TAD anchorage.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Metzner et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Zhu Y, Hollis JH. Tooth loss and its association with dietary intake and diet quality in American adults. J Dent. 2014; 42:1428-35.
• [2]Susin C, Haas AN, Opermann RV, Albandar JM. Tooth loss in a young population from south Brazil. J Public Health Dent. 2006; 66:110-5.
• [3]Demirci M, Tuncer S, Yuceokur AA. Prevalence of caries on individual tooth surfaces and its distribution by age and gender in university clinic patients. Eur J Dent. 2010; 4:270-279.
• [4]Rolling S. Hypodontia of permanent teeth in Danish schoolchildren. Scand J Dent Res. 1980; 88:365-9.
• [5]Bergstrom K. An orthopantomographic study of hypodontia, supernumeraries and other anomalies in school children between the ages of 8–9 years. An epidemiological study. Swed Dent J. 1977; 1:145-57.
• [6]Wisth PJ, Thunold K, Boe OE. Frequency of hypodontia in relation to tooth size and dental arch width. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974; 32:201-6.
• [7]Zimmer B, Schelper I, Seifi-Shirvandeh N. Localized orthodontic space closure for unilateral aplasia of lower second premolars. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29:210-6.
• [8]Kokich VG, Kokich VO. Congenitally missing mandibular second premolars: clinical options. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:437-44.
• [9]Bauss O, Sadat-Khonsari R, Engelke W, Kahl-Nieke B. Results of transplanting developing third molars as part of orthodontic space management. Part 1: clinical and radiographic results. J Orofac Orthop. 2002; 63:483-92.
• [10]Lundberg T, Isaksson S. A clinical follow-up study of 278 autotransplanted teeth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34:181-185.
• [11]Bauer W, Wehrbein H, Schulte-Lünzum H, Diedrich P. Keimtransplantation oder Lückenschluß-eine vergleichende Studie bei Verlust der ersten Molaren. J Orofac Orthop. 1991; 52:84-92.
• [12]Andreasen JO, Paulsen HU, Yu Z, Bayer T, Schwartz O. A long-term study of 370 autotransplanted premolars. Part II. Tooth survival and pulp healing subsequent to transplantation. Eur J Orthod. 1990; 12:14-24.
• [13]Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19:119-30.
• [14]Tsaousidis G, Bauss O. Influence of insertion site on the failure rates of orthodontic miniscrews. J Orofac Orthop. 2008; 69:349-356.
• [15]Maeda A, Sakoguchi Y, Miyawaki S. Patient with oligodontia treated with a miniscrew for unilateral mesial movement of the maxillary molars and alignment of an impacted third molar. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144:430-440.
• [16]Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142:577-95.e7.
• [17]Jacobs C, Jacobs-Muller C, Luley C, Erbe C, Wehrbein H. Orthodontic space closure after first molar extraction without skeletal anchorage. J Orofac Orthop. 2011; 72:51-60.
• [18]Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance–its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod. 1985; 87:1-20.
• [19]Fiorentino G, Melsen B. Asymmetric mandibular space closure. J Clin Orthod. 1996; 30:519-523.
• [20]Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. George Allen & Unwin, London; 1940.
• [21]Berens A, Wiechmann D, Dempf R. Mini- and micro-screws for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop. 2006; 67:450-458.
• [22]Park HS, Jeong SH, Kwon OW. Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:18-25.
• [23]Nagaraj K, Upadhyay M, Yadav S. Titanium screw anchorage for protraction of mandibular second molars into first molar extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:583-91.
• [24]Cheng SJ, Tseng IY, Lee JJ, Kok SH. A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:100-106.
• [25]Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131:S43-51.
• [26]Kadioglu O, Buyukyilmaz T, Zachrisson BU, Miano BG. Contact damage to root surfaces of premolars touching miniscrews during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:353-60.
• [27]Kim YH, Yang SM, Kim S, Lee JY, Kim KE, Gianelly AA, Kyung SH. Midpalatal miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage: factors affecting clinical success. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:66-72.
• [28]Wiechmann D, Meyer U, Buchter A. Success rate of mini- and micro-implants used for orthodontic anchorage: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18:263-267.
• [29]Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 115:607-18.
• [30]Wiechmann D, Schwestka-Polly R, Hohoff A. Herbst appliance in lingual orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:439-446.
• [31]Wiechmann D, Schwestka-Polly R, Pancherz H, Hohoff A. Control of mandibular incisors with the combined Herbst and completely customized lingual appliance–a pilot study. Head Face Med. 2010; 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Liou EJW, Pai BCJ, Lin JCY. Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126:42-47.
• [33]Dixon V, Read MJ, O’Brien KD, Worthington HV, Mandall NA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2002; 29:31-6.
• [34]Samuels RH, Rudge SJ, Mair LH. A clinical study of space closure with nickel-titanium closed coil springs and an elastic module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114:73-9.
• [35]Graber L, Vanarsdall R, Vig K. Bone Physiology, Metabolism, and Biomechanics in Orthodontic Practice. In: Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques. fifth edition ed. 2011.287-343.
• [36]Zimmer B, Rottwinkel Y. Orthodontic space closure without counterbalancing extractions in patients with bilateral aplasia of the lower second premolars. J Orofac Orthop. 2002; 63:400-21.