EVALUATION OF TREATMENT RESULTS AND STABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH ANTERIOR OPEN BITE TREATED BY PREMOLAR EXTRACTIONS OR MINI-IMPLANT ANCHORED INTRUSION

Year 2017, , 147 - 153, 03.12.2017

Işıl Aras

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.381304

Cited By: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the
treatment results and stability of open bite treatment achieved via intrusion
of posterior teeth and extraction of 1^st premolars

Material and Methods: This study was
conducted on pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2) and follow-up (T3)
cephalograms of 28 patients who received open bite treatment. 14 patients (mean
age 14.61±0.87) were treated with the extraction of the 1^st premolar
(extraction group: EG) while 14 patients (mean age 15.06±1.05) had bite closure
via intrusion of the posterior teeth using mini-implants (mini-implant group:
MG). The mean follow-up periods in EG and MG were 3.32±1.25 (range, 2.10-6.20)
and 2.74±0.77 years (range, 2.05-4.34), respectively.

Results: At T2, SNB increased and SNGoGn decreased significantly in MG, with
significant intergroup difference (p<0.05). Maxillary and mandibular
incisors extruded significantly in both groups, with greater amounts in EG
(p<0.05). Maxillary and mandibular incisors’ inclinations decreased
significantly in EG, with a significant intergroup difference (p<0.05).
Maxillary posterior teeth intruded significantly in MG, with a significant
intergroup difference (p<0.05). At T3, significant intrusion of upper
incisors and extrusion of posterior teeth were observed in EG and MG,
respectively, and these measurements showed significant intergroup differences
(p<0.05). Decreases in overbite were significant in both groups, with no
intergroup difference. The clinically significant relaps rates were 7.14% (1
patient) and 14.28% (2 patients) in MG and EG, respectively.

Conclusion: Even though
mini-implant supported intrusion and extraction therapy achieved bite closure
via different treatment effects, both groups showed similar relaps tendencies
at the follow-up.

Keywords: open bite, tooth extraction, tooth
intrusion

 

PREMOLAR ÇEKİMLERİ
VEYA MİNİ VİDA DESTEKLİ İNTRÜZYON İLE TEDAVİ EDİLMİŞ ÖN AÇIK KAPANIŞLI
HASTALARDA TEDAVİ SONUÇLARININ VE STABİLİTENİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

ÖZ

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı 1. Premolar çekimi ve
maksiller posterior dişlerin intrüzyonu ile gerçekleştirilen açık kapanış
tedavilerinin sonuç ve stabilitesinin karşılaştırılmasıdır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma açık
kapanış tedavisi gören 28 hastanın tedavi öncesi (T1), tedavi sonrası (T2) ve
takip (T3) sefalometrik röntgenleri üzerinde yürütüldü. 14 hastada (ortalama
yaş 14.61±0.87) 1. Premolar çekimli konvensiyonel ortodontik tedavi
uygulanırken, 14 hastanın (15.06±1.05) tedavisi posterior dişlerin intrüzyonu
ile yapıldı. Çekim ve mini-implant gruplarında ortalama takip zamanları sırası
ile 3.32±1.25 ve 2.74±0.77 yıldı.

Bulgular: Tedavi sonunda mini-implant grubunda,  SNB açısındaki artış ve SNGoGn açısındaki
azalma önemli bulundu (p<0.05). Bu ölçümler bakımından gruplar arasındaki
fark da önem bulundu (p<0.05). 
Maksiller ve mandibular kesici dişler çekim grubunda daha fazla olmak
üzere her iki grupta da önemli ekstrüzyon gösterdi (p<0.05). Tedavi sonunda
gruplar arasında önemli bir fark ile, mini-implant grubunda maksiller posterior
dişlerin intrüzyonu önemli bulundu (p<0.05). T3 döneminde, çekim grubunda
üst keserlerde önemli intrüzyon gözlemlenirken, mini-implant grubunda posterior
dişlerin ekstüzyonu önemli bulundu ve bu değerler bakımından gruplar arasındaki
farklar da önem çıktı (p<0.05). T3’de saptanan overbite miktarındaki
azalmalar her iki grupta da önemli bulunurken (p<0.05), gruplar arsındaki
fark önemsizdi (p>0.05).  Klinik
olarak önemli relaps oranları mini-implant ve çekim gruplarında sırası ile
%7.14 (1 kişi) ve %14.28 (2 kişi) olarak belirlendi.

Sonuç: Mini-implantlarla intrüzyon ve çekimli
tedaviler farklı yollarla açık kapanışın tedavinde başarılı olsa da, her iki
grubun takip sürecinde relaps eğilimleri benzer bulunmuştur.

Anahtar
Kelimeler: açık
kapanış, diş çekimi, diş gömülmesi

Keywords

open bite, tooth extraction

References

• 1. Zuroff JP, Chen SH, Shapiro PA, Little RM, Joondeph DR, Huang GJ. Orthodontic treatment of anterior open-bite malocclusion: stability 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:302 e301-8.
• 2. Lopez-Gavito G, Wallen TR, Little RM, Joondeph DR. Anterior open-bite malocclusion: a longitudinal 10-year postretention evaluation of orthodontically treated patients. Am J Orthod 1985;87:175-86.
• 3. Katsaros C, Berg R. Anterior open bite malocclusion: a follow-up study of orthodontic treatment effects. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:273-80.
• 4. Baek MS, Choi YJ, Yu HS, Lee KJ, Kwak J, Park YC. Long-term stability of anterior open-bite treatment by intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:396 e391-9.
• 5. Greenlee GM, Huang GJ, Chen SS, Chen J, Koepsell T, Hujoel P. Stability of treatment for anterior open-bite malocclusion: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:154-69.
• 6. Kim YH, Han UK, Lim DD, Serraon ML. Stability of anterior openbite correction with multiloop edgewise archwire therapy: A cephalometric follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:43-54.
• 7. Remmers D, Van't Hullenaar RW, Bronkhorst EM, Berge SJ, Katsaros C. Treatment results and long-term stability of anterior open bite malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008;11:32-42.
• 8. Chang YI, Moon SC. Cephalometric evaluation of the anterior open bite treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:29-38.
• 9. Janson G, Valarelli FP, Beltrao RT, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Stability of anterior open-bite extraction and nonextraction treatment in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:768-74.
• 10. Reitan K, Rygh P. Biomechanical principles and reactions. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics—current principles and techniques. St Louis, M0: Mosby; 1994, p.168–69.
• 11. Janson G, Valarelli FP, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, Cancado RH. Stability of anterior open bite nonextraction treatment in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:265-76.
• 12. de Freitas MR, Beltrao RT, Janson G, Henriques JF, Cancado RH. Long-term stability of anterior open bite extraction treatment in the permanent dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:78-87.
• 13. Kucera J, Marek I, Tycova H, Baccetti T. Molar height and dentoalveolar compensation in adult subjects with skeletal open bite. Angle Orthod 2011;81:564-9.
• 14. Scheffler NR, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes and stability in patients with anterior open bite and long anterior face height treated with temporary anchorage devices and a maxillary intrusion splint. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2014;146:594-602.
• 15. Deguchi T, Kurosaka H, Oikawa H, Kuroda S, Takahashi I, Yamashiro T et al. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in adults with skeletal open bite between conventional edgewise treatment and implant-anchored orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:S60-8.
• 16. Xun C, Zeng X, Wang X. Microscrew anchorage in skeletal anterior open-bite treatment. Angle Orthod 2007;77:47-56.
• 17. Staggers JA. A comparison of results of second molar and first premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:430-6.
• 18. Kucukkeles N, Acar A, Demirkaya AA, Evrenol B, Enacar A. Cephalometric evaluation of open bite treatment with NiTi arch wires and anterior elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:555-62.
• 19. Choi YJ, Kim DJ, Nam J, Chung CJ, Kim KH. Cephalometric configuration of the occlusal plane in patients with anterior open bite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:391-400.
• 20. Hart TR, Cousley RR, Fishman LS, Tallents RH. Dentoskeletal changes following mini-implant molar intrusion in anterior open bite patients. Angle Orthod 2015;85:941-8.
• 21. Erverdi N, Keles A, Nanda R. The use of skeletal anchorage in open bite treatment: a cephalometric evaluation. Angle Orthod 2004;74:381-90.
• 22.Çatalbaş B, Tan E. Treatment of open-bite with double vertical holding: case report. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2015;Supp10:64-70.
• 23. Kuitert R, Beckmann S, van Loenen M, Tuinzing B, Zentner A. Dentoalveolar compensation in subjects with vertical skeletal dysplasia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:649-57.