Displacement pattern of the anterior segment using antero-posterior lingual retractor combined with a palatal plate

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the effects of two appliances on the en masse retraction of the anterior teeth anchored by temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs).MethodsThe sample comprised 46 nongrowing hyperdivergent adult patients who planned to undergo upper first premolar extraction using lingual retractors. They were divided into three groups, based on the lingual appliance used: the C-lingual retractor (CLR) group (group 1, n = 16) and two antero-posterior lingual retractor (APLR) groups (n = 30, groups 2 and 3). The APLR group was divided by the posterior tube angulation; posterior tube parallel to the occlusal plane (group 2, n = 15) and distally tipped tube (group 3, n = 15). A retrospective clinical investigation of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue relationships was performed using lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained pretreatment and post en masse retraction of the anterior teeth.ResultsAll groups achieved significant incisor and canine retraction. The upper posterior teeth did not drift significantly during the retraction period. The APLR group had less angulation change in the anterior dentition, compared to the CLR group. By changing the tube angulation in the APLR, the intrusive force significantly increased in the distally tipped tube of group 3 patients and remarkably reduced the occlusal plane angle.ConclusionsCompared to the CLR, the APLR provides better anterior torque control and canine tipping while achieving bodily translation. Furthermore, changing the tube angulation will affect the amount of incisor intrusion, even in patients with similar palatal vault depth, without the need for additional TSADs.

Type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy in adults: A randomized clinical trial

“…The maxillary central and lateral incisors showed controlled tipping movement. The mean change in central incisor inclination was similar to that reported by Seo et al,17 where a 10.65 ± 5.17° change in the labiolingual inclination of the central incisor occurred. Kim et al12 found a decrease of 7.8° in the SN-U1 angle in the group where 10-mm long retraction hooks were used, while the group with shorter retraction hooks showed a decrease of 12.1°.…”

“…The existing body of research on the biocreative technique mainly consists of case reports,45910 three-dimensional finite element analyses,6131416 and retrospective studies 111217. No randomized controlled trial has been published comparing the treatment effects using labial versus lingual biocreative techniques.…”

Control of anterior segment using an antero-posterior lingual sliding retraction system: a preliminary cone-beam CT study

“…In addition, even though both retractors are composed of thick (0.9 mm) stainless steel wires, the lever arm and guide bar could be deflected during retraction, making accurate force application and location of the force vector difficult. Therefore, a modified APLR is proposed, in which the lever arms of both sides are connected to prevent deflection and a trans-palatal arch is added to link the posterior segments [ 20 ]. Furthermore, the difference between the angles of the position of the guide bar and tube as well as correlations between tube height and anterior and posterior intrusion should be considered in future studies.…”

Finite Element Analysis of Stress in Maxillary Dentition during En-masse Retraction with Implant Anchorage

“…Many clinical studies 11,25) and biomechanical analyses have investigated posterior movement of the anterior teeth using implant anchorage. Few clinical reports 22,28) and biomechanical analyses 2,3,9,31) regarding en-masse retraction of the entire maxillary or mandibular dentition are available, however.…”