Disimpaction of maxillary canines using temporary bone anchorage and cantilever springs

Thébault, Benoît; Dutertre, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2014.12.017

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Insertion of a cantilever in a bracket slot of the TAD produces an undesirable couple. The cantilever’s size should match the dimensions of the slot to reduce the wire play and prevent screw failure [ 32 ]. Cantilevers can be applied to the temporary anchorage devices (TAD) for single impacted tooth traction [ 33 ], and molar uprighting [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Force Systems Produced by Different Cantilever Configurations during Deactivation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intrusion with a three-piece arch is routinely achieved during orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to experimentally determine how the cantilever design influences the generated force system. Both straight and arch-formed cantilever designs: tip-back (TB), flat curve (FC) deep curve (DC), and 3 mm and 6 mm high utility arch (UA3; UA6) were activated for 5 mm and 10 mm. Force systems were determined by a hexapod. Typodonts simulating a three piece-intrusion arch were scanned using an intraoral scanner (3Shape, TRIOS, Denmark) before (T0) and after (T1) the experiment and superimposed with Mimics software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Data were analyzed. All straight designs displayed an extrusive force in the vertical plane, and all arch-formed an intrusive force. DC and TB showed a retrusive force in the sagittal plane and UA6 a protrusive. For the medial/lateral forces, DC and TB displayed a medial, and UA6 a lateral force. Configurations can be distinctively ranked from DC, FC, TB to UA3, and UA6 according to the increasing protrusive nature of the generated sagittal forces. A DC or TB configuration should be used for intrusion and retraction, while for an intrusion and a protrusion, a UA6 configuration. All straight configurations showed a higher force level than the arch-formed configurations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Force Systems Produced by Different Cantilever Configurations during Deactivation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the cantilever is directly attached to the TADs, it can serve as a direct anchorage. To reduce wire play in the screw head, the cantilever’s size should match the dimensions of the slot [ 11 ]. As an indirect anchorage, skeletal anchorage stabilizes the anchorage unit.…”

Section: Anchorage Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thebault et al and Heravi et al described direct impacted canine traction with a cantilever attached to two TADs. The use of two miniscrews eliminates clockwise and counter-clockwise effects on the TADs during activation and deactivation and reduces the failure risk [ 10 , 11 ]. Annarumma et al evaluated the traction of impacted canines attached to a double miniscrew and cantilever system only.…”

Section: Impacted Teethmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The simplicity of the approach make the segmented method a good alternative in the treatment of canine impaction [ 26 ].The cantilever can be also attached both to the anchorage tooth unit and to the TAD, as a multi-attachment appliance. Insertion in the auxillary tube of a molar aids to reduce the moment acting on the head of the screw [ 11 ]. As an indirect anchorage, the TAD is used to stabilize the anchorage unit.…”

Section: Impacted Teethmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cantilevers: Multi-Tool in Orthodontic Treatment

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review aims to discuss and illustrate various uses of cantilevers to solve multiple clinical issues and prove their versatility. Cantilevers are commonly used in the segmented arch technique, and they can be designed to solve various clinical problems with highly predictable results. Its design and shape can modify the various combinations of vertical and horizontal forces. The novel trend is to combine cantilevers with skeletal anchorage. Cantilevers offer a very simple and statically determined force system. The advantage is the control over side effects, which normally occur on the anchor teeth and the occlusion. The disadvantages include possible side effects on the anchorage unit, when the anchorage is poorly controlled. The review highlights the clear benefits of cantilever use in complex corrections of single teeth, segments, and entire arch with a diminished effect on the dentition, also with the use of skeletal anchorage. With their simple and easily tailored design, these springs can be called an orthodontic multi-tool.

show abstract

“…[8,9] Special biomechanics and anchorage are always required during canine traction, such as large cantilever wires with adequate support for the adjacent teeth. [10,11] The active orthodontic treatment time is defined in relation to either the bonding of a fixed orthodontic appliance or the final realignment of the impacted canine within the dental arch. Published data shows the overall treatment time ranging from 19.6 to 28.8 months, with large individual variations.…”

Section: Intoductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Difficulty Chart for Estimation of Treatment Duration of Palatally Impacted Canines

2020

MLU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of maxillary impacted canine is a challenging process to dental specialists and orthodontists. The aim of the present study was to assess the duration of orthodontic treatment of palatally impacted canines, using a difficulty chart as an estimate of the prognosis, and relating it to the treatment time and to other factors that might affect the treatment duration. A cross-sectional study was undertaken using a selfadministered questionnaire to be completed by orthodontists (82 participants). An index was used as a tool to assess the prognosis and treatment duration. The study found that 48.7% of active orthodontic treatment time for palatally impacted canines was completed in 1.5 to 2 years. The number of active treatment visits per patient was between 16 and 22 (62% of treatment visits). In terms of the treatment performed, 81.7% of cases had space created prior to surgical exposure, and 59.8% had open surgical exposure. Failed to attend visits by the patient accounted for 48.4% and 62.2% did not require repeated surgical exposure. Interestingly, 85% of the cases had 'good' or 'average' prognosis (49% and 36%, respectively). A prognostic chart can provide an estimate for the treatment time to bring a palatally impacted canine into the arch. This information might be valuable for both orthodontists and their patients, to estimate the time of the planned treatment and provide a valid consent form.

show abstract

Disimpaction of maxillary canines using temporary bone anchorage and cantilever springs

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Force Systems Produced by Different Cantilever Configurations during Deactivation

Force Systems Produced by Different Cantilever Configurations during Deactivation

Cantilevers: Multi-Tool in Orthodontic Treatment

A Difficulty Chart for Estimation of Treatment Duration of Palatally Impacted Canines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About