International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 129--135

A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: An in vivo study


Neha Gupta, Tulika Tripathi, Priyank Rai, Anup Kanase, Neha 
 Postgraduate, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Tulika Tripathi
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, MAMC Complex, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
India

Introduction: Deep bite correction in patients with convex profile and increased maxillary incisor visibility, and normal or increased vertical dimension necessitates the intrusion of maxillary incisors. Intrusion arches or miniscrews are commonly used for this purpose. The current study compares one of the prefabricated intrusion arches, the Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA), and the temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in their effectiveness for orthodontic intrusion. Materials and Methods: The present prospective study was done on 24 patients in the age group of 15–25 years undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. In Group I, TADs were placed for intrusion while, in Group II, CIA was placed. Anchorage was reinforced in Group II using transpalatal arch. A paired t-test or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the assessment of treatment changes within the groups, and an independent t-test or a Mann–Whitney U-test evaluated change between the groups. Results: Both TADs and CIA can bring about significant amount of true incisor intrusion with resultant decrease in incisor visibility. However, in the TAD group, in addition to intrusion, the incisors also proclined by 0.67 mm, but in CIA group, incisors retracted by 0.33 mm. There were nonsignificant mesial drift and significant extrusive movement of the maxillary first molars in the CIA group. The rate and amount of intrusion was greater in the TAD group. Conclusions: Both TADs and CIA can be effectively used for incisor intrusion which was, however, faster and greater in TAD group. Both the methods bring about associated unwanted tooth movements as well.


How to cite this article:
Gupta N, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A, Neha. A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: An in vivo study.Int J Orthod Rehabil 2017;8:129-135


How to cite this URL:
Gupta N, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A, Neha. A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: An in vivo study. Int J Orthod Rehabil [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 12 ];8:129-135
Available from: http://www.orthodrehab.org/article.asp?issn=2349-5243;year=2017;volume=8;issue=4;spage=129;epage=135;aulast=Gupta;type=0