Dynamics, Efficacies, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Full-Arch Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices (Miniscrews): A Finite Element Analysis. (7th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mazhari, Marzieh; Khanehmasjedi, Mashallah; Mazhary, Mohsen; Atashkar, Nastaran; Rakhshan, Vahid
• Other Names: Mehta Shivam Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: BioMed research international. Volume 2022(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10-07
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Biology -- Periodicals; Biotechnology -- Periodicals; Life sciences -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/6706392
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2314-6133

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction . Absolute anchorages obtained from temporary anchorage devices (TADs, miniscrews) considerably facilitate dental movements and make some very difficult movements such as full-arch intrusions possible. Despite the significance of assessing strategies to fully intrude the arch using mini-implants, there is no study in this regard except a few case reports. Therefore, we simulated/tested 4 scenarios. Methods . Four maxilla models were created with different miniscrews/appliances: (1) two miniscrews were placed distal to laterals and one in the mid sagittal region. (2) Two mini-implants were inserted in mesial of canines and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars, plus another TAD in the midpalatal area, plus a transpalatal arch (TPA). (3) Two mini-implants were inserted between bilateral canines and first premolars and 2 others between bilateral first and second molars + TPA. (4) Two mini-implants were installed between lateral-and-canine and 2 miniscrews between second premolars and first molars + TPA. Intrusive forces (80 g anterior, 150 g posterior) were exerted using stainless-steel coil springs. Stresses/displacements were measured. Risk of external root resorption was evaluated. Results . The highest amounts of incisor/molar intrusion were seen in model 1. Model 2 had fewer intrusions, but its control over undesired movements was greater. Model 4 drastically reduced molar intrusion and considerably increased premolar intrusion. Overall amounts of intrusion were highest in the first 2 models, marking them as proper candidates for cases needing greater intrusion extents. Model 2 may be useful when miniscrew loosening/failure is a concern, while model 1 is recommended when fewer miniscrews are allowed. Overall, the highest and lowest root resorptions might occur in models 1 and 4, respectively. Conclusions . Each model showed certain efficacies/drawbacks and thus is recommended for a particular set of cases. Therefore, depending on the diagnosis and treatment plan, one or more of these scenarios might be desirable.