Mini-implants for the management of a gummy smile

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

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.

Nonsurgical treatment of severe Class II malocclusion with anterior open bite using mini-implants and maxillary lateral incisor and mandibular first molar extractions

This clinical case report presents the nonsurgical orthodontic treatment of a patient with skeletal Class II malocclusion, posterior crossbite, anterior open bite, accentuated dental discrepancies in both arches, and an odontoma. The proposed treatment involved maxillary expansion, extraction of atypical maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular first molars, and intrusion of maxillary teeth with the aid of mini-implants. The results obtained with these procedures included good tooth alignment, normal overbite and overjet, removal of the odontoma, and a harmonious smile. In complex cases, an accurate diagnosis is the key to a favorable outcome.