Dental arch changes after anterior open bite treatment in the mixed dentition produced by miniscrew-supported palatal crib vs conventional fixed palatal crib:

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the dental arch changes produced by the miniscrew-supported palatal crib (MSPC) and the conventional fixed palatal crib (CFPC) after the treatment of patients with anterior open bite (AOB) attributed to the tongue-thrusting habit in the mixed dentition stage. Materials and Methods A total of 26 children aged 8 to 11 years with an AOB were randomly distributed into two equal groups; the MSPC group was treated using a palatal crib supported by two miniscrews inserted paramedially, whereas the CFPC group was treated using a conventional fixed palatal crib soldered to bands. Digital models were obtained pretreatment and after a follow-up duration of 9 months. Results The MSPC group included 12 participants (9 girls and 3 boys; mean age, 9.4 ± 0.75 years), and the CFPC group included 12 participants (10 girls and 2 boys; mean age, 9.0 ± 0.73 years). The amount of AOB closure was similar in both groups: 3.97 ± 1.44 mm in the MSPC group and 3.97 ± 0.89 mm in the CFPC group. There was significant mesial movement of the maxillary first molar in the CFPC (−1.42 ± 0.99 mm) compared with the MSPC group (−0.53 ± 0.32 mm). Conclusions Both appliances resulted in similar improvement in the amount of AOB closure. There was significantly more mesial movement of the maxillary first molars in the CFPC group compared with the MSPC group.

Dentoalveolar effects of skeletally anchored extrusion arch in anterior open bite patients: A prospective clinical trial

“…A previous study by de Brito Vasconcelos et al 15 Fouda et al 18 , who documented a significant increase in the length of incisors' clinical crown by 0.33±0.64 mm and 0.49±0.63 mm, respectively. This increase can be explained by the fact that, during extrusion of the incisors, the gingiva may not conform to the tooth, which may increase the clinical crown height.…”

“…This finding was consistent with those of de Brito Vasconcelos et al 15 Regarding the effect of the extrusion arch on the upper permanent molars, there was no statistically significant difference in their anteroposterior position (p>0.005). A randomized clinical trial conducted by Fouda et al 18 showed that there was a significant mesial tipping of the upper first molar by 1.42 ±0.99 mm and 0.53±0.32 mm in the conventional fixed palatal crib group and the miniscrew-supported palatal crib group respectively.…”

Clinical Experience and Digital Knowledge in Virtual Planning of Palatal Orthodontic Miniscrew Insertion

“…2023, 13, 7474 2 of 11 Skeletal anchorage in the anterior palate is optimal for supporting various treatment mechanics, including distalization [8], rapid maxillary expansion [9], space closure [10], intrusion mechanics [11], canine disimpaction [12][13][14] and final incisor position relative to the facial profile esthetics [15,16]. Furthermore, orthodontists can address more complex clinical situations, such as severe open bite [17], impacted teeth [18] or mixed dentition [19].…”