En masse retraction versus two-step retraction of anterior teeth in extraction treatment of bimaxillary protrusion

Nayef H Felemban, Fahad F Al-Sulaimani, Zuhair A Murshid, Ali H Hassan, Nayef H Felemban, Fahad F Al-Sulaimani, Zuhair A Murshid, Ali H Hassan

Abstract

In the present report, two techniques of space closure; two-step anterior teeth retraction (TSR) and en masse retraction (ER) were used in two adult patients who had bimaxillary protrusion and were treated with four premolar extractions and fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Both patients had a Class I dental malocclusion and the same chief complaint, which is protrusive lips. Anterior teeth were retracted by two-step retraction; canine sliding followed by retraction of incisors with T-loop archwire in the first patient and by en masse retraction using Beta titanium alloy T-loop archwire in the second case. At the end of treatment, good balance and harmony of lips was achieved with maintenance of Class I relationships. The outcome of treatment was similar in the two patients with similar anchorage control. ER can be an acceptable alternative to the TSR during space closure since it is esthetically more acceptable. However, it requires accurate bending and positioning of the T-loop.

Keywords: Anchorage; bimaxillary; en masse; protrusion; retraction.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Initial intraoral photographs (case 1)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Initial casts (case 1)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pre-treatment cephalogram (case 1)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Initial intraoral photographs (case 2)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Initial casts (case 2)
Figure 6
Figure 6
Pre-treatment cephalogram (case 2)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Leveling and alignment (case 1)
Figure 8
Figure 8
Leveling and alignment (case 2)
Figure 9
Figure 9
Canine retraction (case 1)
Figure 10
Figure 10
Incisors retraction (case 1)
Figure 11
Figure 11
T-Loop archwire
Figure 12
Figure 12
En masse retraction of anterior teeth (case 2)
Figure 13
Figure 13
En masse retraction of anterior teeth (case 2)
Figure 14
Figure 14
Post-treatment cephalogram (case 1)
Figure 15
Figure 15
Post-treatment cephalogram (case 2)
Figure 16
Figure 16
Post-treatment photographs (case 1)
Figure 17
Figure 17
Post-treatment photographs (case 2)
Figure 18
Figure 18
Post-treatment casts (case 1)
Figure 19
Figure 19
Post-treatment casts (case 2)
Figure 20
Figure 20
Superimposition (case 1)
Figure 21
Figure 21
Superimposition (case 2)

References

    1. Braun S, Sjursen RC, Jr, Legan HL. On the management of extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:645–55.
    1. Proffit WR, Field HW, Jr, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007. The biological basis of orthodontic therapy; pp. 331–58.
    1. Xu TM, Zhang X, Oh HS, Boyd RL, Korn EL, Baumrind S. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:544.e1–9.
    1. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:30–5.
    1. Burstone CJ. Rationale of the segmented arch. Am J Orthod. 1962;48:805–22.
    1. Burstone CJ. The mechanics of the segmented arch techniques. Angle Orthod. 1966;36:99–120.
    1. Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:361–78.
    1. Burstone CJ, Hanley KJ. Farmington: University of Connecticut Health Center; 1985. Modern edgewise mechanics segmented arch technique.
    1. Kuhlberg AJ, Burstone CJ. T-loop position and anchorage control. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112:12–8.
    1. Kuhlberg AJ, Priebe D. Testing force systems and biomechanics - Measured tooth movements from differential moment closing loops. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:270–80.
    1. Bjork A, Skieller V. Growth of the maxilla in three dimensions as revealed radiographically by the implant method. Br J Orthod. 1977;4:53–64.
    1. Bjork Variations in the Growth Pattern of the Human Mandible: Longitudinal Radiographic Study by the Implant Method. J of dent res. 1963;42:400–411.
    1. Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod. 1976;70:1–19.
    1. Erverdia N, Acarb A. Zygomatic Anchorage for En Masse Retraction in the Treatment of Severe Class II Division 1. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:483–490.
    1. Liou EJ, Chang PM. Apical root resorption in orthodontic patients with en-masse maxillary anterior retraction and intrusion with miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:207–12.
    1. Nanda R. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1997. Biomechanics in Clinical Orthodontics; pp. 156–61.
    1. Heo W, Nahm DS, Baek SH. En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:973–8.
    1. Juvvadi SR, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, Chitharanjan AB. Physical, mechanical, and flexural properties of 3 orthodontic wires: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:623–30.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir