One versus two anterior miniscrews for correcting upper incisor overbite and angulation: a retrospective comparative study

Abstract

Background: Miniscrews are effective devices for performing upper incisor intrusion. Different mechanics can be applied depending on the treatment objectives. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of one or two anterior miniscrews for upper incisor correction in cases of overbite and angulation in adult patients. Methods: Forty-four adults with deep overbite were divided into two groups: group 1 was treated with one miniscrew between upper central incisors and group 2 with two miniscrews between upper lateral incisors and canines. Incisor intrusion and length were measured from lateral cephalograms before treatment, after treatment and at least 12 months into retention (T0, T1 and T2). Forces were applied (90 g) from the miniscrews to the archwire using elastomeric chains. ANOVA analysis was used to determine whether differences between evaluation times were statistically significant. Results: Mean root resorption was 2.15 ± 0.85 mm, which ceased after active treatment. Overbite mean correction was − 3.23 ± 1.73 mm with no statistically significant relapse. Overbite correction and incisor intrusion were significantly greater in group 2 (− 3.80 ± 1.43 versus − 2.75 ± 1.63 for OB and 8.19 ± 3.66 versus 5.69 ± 2.66 for intrusion). Resorption and overbite correction were positively related. No counterclockwise rotation of the mandibular plane was observed. Conclusions: Overbite correction can be performed by means of upper incisor intrusion without rotation of the mandibular plane. Correction of upper incisor intrusion and overbite is greater in patients treated with two miniscrews. The increase in upper incisor buccal angulation is greater with one miniscrew. Root resorption is positively related to the extent of intrusion. Stability is satisfactory regardless of whether one or two miniscrews are used.

Evaluation of Orthodontic Mini-Implant Placement in the Maxillary Anterior Alveolar Region in 15 Patients by Cone Beam Computed Tomography at a Single Center in South India

“…Alsamak et al [ 39 ] concluded in their systematic review that the optimal site of placement of mini-implants in the anterior maxilla is between the canine and first premolar, whereas Fayed et al [ 40 ] concluded the optimal site is between the central and lateral incisors. Also, maxillary anterior intrusion with good control over buccal angulation is seen when using 2 mini-implants that are placed between the canine and lateral incisor on right as well as the left side, rather than a single midline implant, as reported by Vela-Hernández [ 41 ].…”

The Effects of Intrusion of Anterior Teeth by Skeletal Anchorage in Deep Bite Patients; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The full text of the remaining 30 studies (21 studies by database search and 9 studies after manual search) were retrieved and analyzed, 5 of them because only the amount of vertical control of teeth during retraction was assessed and 10 of them were excluded because they did not have a mini-screw group. A total of 15 articles were included in our study for systematic review [ 15 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ], and after data extraction, meta-analyses were performed on 14 studies, and for one study [ 42 ], only a systematic review was performed due to differences in outcomes and retainers under review with the rest of the studies.…”

“…Regarding root resorption, in the evaluated studies, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the amount of root resorption, both linearly (Deguchi et al, Karagoz et al, Vela Hernandez et al) [ 15 , 40 , 44 ] and volumetrically (Liou et al) [ 42 ]. In all investigated intrusion groups, moderate root resorption in the apex (about 1 to 2 mm) was observed.…”

“…In our review, after performing a subgroup analysis on the upper incisal tip (U1-PP), no significant difference was seen between placing mini-screws between lateral and canine or between central and canine ( p = 0.32). Additionally, in the study by Vela-Hernandez et al, no significant difference in incisal inclination was found when one mini-screw in the midline or two mini-screws between the lateral and canine were used [ 40 ].…”

A novel biomechanical system to intrude the upper incisors and control overbite: Posterior miniscrew-assisted lever arm and 2 cases report

“…The method has been demonstrated to be efficient in deep overbite correction no matter with 1 or 2 miniscrews. [ 17 ] However, the usage of miniscrew is accompanied with multiple adverse effects, including biologic damage, inflammation, pain and discomfort. [ 18 , 19 ] With this method, at least 1 extra miniscrew needs to be inserted into maxillary anterior alveolar bone, which would increase the risk and cost and turn out to be not friendly enough for patients.…”