Download (orthodontic anchorage) ( ) ( 17:85

(orthodontic anchorage)
(
)
(
17:85-98, 2012)
Park
3,4
1960
1984
1
Branemark
Roberts
2
(temporary anchorage
TADs)5
devices,
TAD
4-8
100
1990
1999
: 100
10
30
:
,
: 100
11
20
,
: 100
12
15
250
E-mail: [email protected]
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
85
absolute anchorage)
1996
6
(systematic review)
(skeletal or
Kokich
6
(samarium-cobalt magnets)
6~8
Pubmed
Library
(facebow)
(J-hook
headgear)
(dental unit)
(transpalatal arch,TPA)
(anchorage loss)
movement)7
Skeggs
8
Library
(reciprocal
2008
51
(headgear)
(mid-palatal implant)
(mid-palatal implant)
(headgear)
(evidence-based medicine)
86
7
dental implants, prosthetic implants,
osseointegrated implants, orthodontic anchorage
:
:
(mini-screws,
mini-implants, mini-plates, onplants)
(palatal implants)
(temporary anchorage devices, TADs)
(resorbable,biodegradable implants)
(review articles)
(one case report)
Cochrane
(randomized clinical trial,
RCT)9
2011
Cochrane
(retract)
first
premolar extraction, canine retraction, anterior
teeth retraction, anchorage loss, orthodontic
anchorage
:
:
(extraoral anchorage devices)
(palatal expansion or anchorage)
(transpalatal arch, TPA) Nance
(Nance
appliance) Herbst
(Herbst appliance)
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
(molar distalization)
(review articles)
(one case report)
360
6
(Oxford
Centre for Evidence Based
3
level 3
Medicine)10
3
(level of evidence)
level 5
2
1
level 5
(posterior bite collapse)
3
level 2
(intra/inter-arch)
Kokich Schweizer
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
11
1996
6
87
2006
Kato
41
(ITI:TPS,SLA;Nobel:TiUnite)12
Kokich
Orthodontic Applications of
Osseointegrated Implants
11
1
4-6
1~5
(splinting)
splinting)
11 Huang
2005
150-400
0.8~6
(cross-arch
16
(standand
0.5mm
healing protocol)
3-6
Kato Marta
(
)
(peri-implant mucositis)
100%
Kato
2
3-6
12,14
13
Palagi
40N
3
(
)
4
90% 15
2
300
(primary
(intrusion)
93
Marta
2008
stability)
3-6
Osseotite (BIOMET 3i)
14
38
4-6
(Ni-Ti
100-200
springs)
(intrusive, extrusive,
compressive, tipping)
20-300
2-9
(OSSTELL)
30
ISQ(Implant Stability Quotient, ISQ)
ISQ
Palagi
17
(ISQ=68)
(ISQ=66)
0.2mm
6
2010
(Sistema de Implante,
20
Brazil)15
SIN
300
Huang
2005
16
11
40N
4
200
2
88
90%
Akin-Nergiz 1998
(4.1 12 mm ITI TPS
18
(sheep-dogs)
24
Bonefit
)
500
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
pre-adjusted edgewise
Brånemark
Saito
(3.75 7mm)
200
2000
beagle dogs
32
19
1.73mm
ITI
Mezomo
3
26
Melsen 2001
(TPS,2.2 6mm)
Ni-Ti coil spring
11
2010
25%
2-3mm
4.0mm
20
(
O)X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
O)X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)
182
12
6
Luecke
(
1992
)
(heterogeneity)
(meta-analysis)
)
42
22~64
21
edgewise
7
17
19
5.0mm
3.2mm
edgewise
(
7
)
Lawrence 1996
22 12
(ankylosed teeth)
3
5.6mm
2005
2.0mm
23
42
3.1-4.0mm
2007 24
Heo
masse
13
Urias
40
30
6
en4.0mm
Basha
2010
27-29
(biological age)
Mish
15
two-step
2.0mm
(chronological age)
30
Carl E.
18
(sex)
xx(infraocclusion)
25
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
89
31
90
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
a.
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
b.Chiapasco M, Gatti C. ;Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;5:29
38.
91
92
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
93
2-33
2
6-42
Mezomo
26
3
(laceback ligatures)
x/
(anchorage
loss/active movement)
1.41
60%35
7.0-7.5mm 36,37
2557%
x-ray
(maximum)
Akin-
Nergiz
1998
6
sheep-dogs
(open coil springs)
204
3
510
0.02-0.04mm
18
(
)
(relapse)
12
Artun
38
1997
(bonded retainer)
(removable retainer)
(canine-to-canine)
4.0-6.0mm
1.7-4.0mm
(irregularity index)
(relapse)
Begg 1956
Begg
differential force technique)
(maximun)
(light wire
23%
14%
2002
1/4
32
1/2
Feldmann
(moderate)
1/4-1/2
(minimun)
2006
33
)
0.84(
34
94
20
(polyethylene ribbons bonded retainer)
(multistranded wire bonded
retainer)39
3
7
(
7
(effectiveness)
2
(RCT)
35
13.7
(laceback ligatures)
62
Rose
(relapse)
Usmani
2002
2.66)mm
Irvine 2004
(mutual contact)
stone,
(absolute anchorage)
(arch structure)
)
(key
13.7
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
(3-6
)
400
1. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its
experimental background. J Prosthet Dent
,50(3):399-410, 1983.
2. Roberts WE, Nelson CL, Goodacre CJ. Rigid
implant anchorage to close a mandibular first
molar extraction site. J Clin Orthod
,28(12):693-704 ,1994.
3. HS Park. The skeletal cortical anchorage using
titanium microscrew implants. Korean J
Orthod , 29:699-706, 1999.
4. HS. Park. The Use of Micro-Implant as
Orthodontic Anchorage. Seoul, South Korea:
Nare Pub Co, 5-124, 2001.
5. Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, De Clerck HJ,
Tulloch JF, Behets CN. Systematic review of
the experimental use of temporary skeletal
anchorage devices in orthodontics. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop , 131(4 Suppl):S52-8
,2007.
6. Kokich VG. Managing complex orthodontic
problems: the use of implants for anchorage.
Semin Orthod , 2(2):153-60, 1996.
7. Roberts HD, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 9:
Anchorage control and distal movement. Brit
Dent J, 196:255-63, 2004.
8. Skeggs RM, Benson PE, Dyer F. Reinforcement
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
of anchorage during orthodontic brace
treatment with implants or other surgical
methods (Review). The Cochrane Library,
2008(4).
9. Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ, et al.
Midpalatal implants vs headgear for
orthodontic anchorage--a randomized clinical
trial: cephalometric results. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop , 132(5):606-15, 2007.
10. Levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for
Evidence-Based Medicine.Web site:
http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp,
2008.
11. Kenji W.H. In Orthodontic Applications of
Osseiointegrated Implants , Quintessence,
2000.
12. Kato S, Kato M. Moderately roughened- and
roughened-surface implants used as rigid
orthodontic anchorage: a case series. Clin
Implant Dent Relat Res , 8(2):87-94, 2006.
13. Kato S, Kato M. Intrusion of molars with
implants as anchorage: a report of two cases.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res , 8(2):100-6,
2006.
14. de Cravero Marta R, Carlos IJ. Assessing
double Acid-etched implants submitted to
orthodontic forces and used as prosthetic
anchorages in partially edentulous patients.
Open Dent J, 2:30-7, 2008.
15. Palagi LM, Sabrosa CE, Gava EC, Baccetti T,
Miguel JA. Long-term follow-up of dental
single implants under immediate orthodontic
load. Angle Orthod, 80(5):807-11, 2010.
16. Huang LH, Shotwell JL, Wang HL. Dental
implants for orthodontic anchorage. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 127(6):713-22,
2005.
17. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C,
95
Tartaglia GM. Single tooth bite forces in
healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil ,
31(1):18-22, 2004.
18. Akin-Nergiz N, Nergiz I, Schulz A, Arpak N,
Niedermeier W. Reactions of peri-implant
tissues to continuous loading of
osseointegrated implants. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop , 114(3):292-8, 1998.
19. Saito S, Sugimoto N, Morohashi T, et al.
Endosseous titanium implants as anchors for
mesiodistal tooth movement in the beagle
dog. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop ,
118(6):601-7, 2000.
20. Melsen B, Lang NP. Biological reactions of
alveolar bone to orthodontic loading of oral
implants. Clin Oral Implants Res , 12(2):14452, 2001.
21. Luecke PE, 3rd, Johnston LE, Jr. The effect
of maxillary first premolar extraction and
incisor retraction on mandibular position:
testing the central dogma of "functional
orthodontics". Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop , 101(1):4-12, 1992.
22. Lotzof LP, Fine HA, Cisneros GJ. Canine
retraction: a comparison of two preadjusted
bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop, 110(2):191-6, 1996.
23. Urias D, Mustafa FI. Anchorage control in
bioprogressive vs straight-wire treatment.
Angle Orthod, 75(6):987-92, 2005.
24. 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 ,77(6):973-8, 2007.
25. Basha AG, Shantaraj R, Mogegowda SB.
Comparative study between conventional enmasse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-
96
masse retraction using orthodontic micro
implant. Implant Dent , 19(2):128-36, 2010.
26. Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM,
Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine
retraction with self-ligating and conventional
brackets. Angle Orthod, 81(2):292-7,
2011.ntofacial Orthop, 127(6):713-22, 2005.
27. Kawanami M, Andreasen JO, Borum MK, et
al. Infraposition of ankylosed permanent
maxillary incisors after replantation related to
age and sex. Endod Dent Traumatol,
15(2):50-6, 1999.
28. Oesterle LJ, Cronin RJ Jr, Ranly
DM.Maxillary implants and the growing
patient.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants ,
8:377-87, 1993.
29. Westwood RM, Duncan JM. Implant in
adolescents: A literature review and case
reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants,
11:750-55, 1996.
30. Misch CE. In Dental Implant Prosthetics ,
Elsevier Mosby, 2005.
31. Rossi E, Andreasen JO. Maxillary bone
growth and implant positioning in a young
patient: a case report. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent, 23(2):113-9, 2003.
32. Begg P.R., Kesling PC. Differential force in
orthodontic treatment. Amer. J. Orthodont,
42:481-510, 1956.
33. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic
anchorage: a systematic review. Angle
Orthod,76(3):493-501, 2006.
34. Usmani T, O'Brien KD, Worthington HV, et
al. A randomized clinical trial to compare the
effectiveness of canine lacebacks with
reference to canine tip. J Orthod, 29(4):2816; discussion 77, 2002.
35. Irvine R, Power S, McDonald F. The
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
effectiveness of laceback ligatures: a
randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod,
31(4):303-11; discussion 300, 2004.
36. Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi
TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth
size discrepancy of the permanent dentition
of Dominican Americans. Angle
Orthod,70(4):303-7, 2000.
37. Ling JY, Wong RW. Tooth dimensions of
Southern Chinese. Homo, 58(1):67-73, 2007.
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012
38. Årtun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A 3-year
follow-up study of various types of
orthodontic
canine-to-canine
retainers.European Journal of Orthodontics,
19:501-09, 1997.
39. Rose E, Frucht S, Jonas IE. Clinical
comparison of a multistranded wire and a
direct-bonded polyethylene ribbon-reinforced
resin composite used for lingual retention.
Quintessence Int, 33(8):579-83, 2002.
97
Comparison of fixed anchorage and conventional
tooth anchorage in orthodontics
I-Hsin Lin Tony Shing-zang Dung Hsein-Kun Lu
Graduate Institute of Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
It is difficult to rehabilitate the oral conditions of patients with moderate to severe periodontitis in
combination with orthodontics because in lack of appropriate orthodontic anchorage. Stability of the
orthodontic anchorage often determines the success of the orthodontic treatment. Dental implants have
prevailingly been used as fixed anchorage for orthodontic treatment in the last decade. Implant
anchorage provides a stable anchorage and also as the corner stone of dental arch to stabilize the new
alignment of teeth. This article reviews the use of prosthetic implant in dental treatment, which included
the way of applications, timing, and loading status. The differences of prosthetic implant and
conventional tooth anchorage was also compared. (J Taiwan Periodontol 17:85-98, 2012)
Key words : prosthetic implants, orthodontic anchorage, orthodontic tooth movement
Received: October 30, 2011, Revised: Novembre 20, 2011, Accepted: December 15, 2011
Address reprint requests and correspondence to: Prof. Hsein-Kun Lu, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical
University, and Clinical Periodontics, Dental Department, Taipei Medical University Hospital, 250 Wu-Xing Street,
Taipei 110, Taiwan.
E-mail: [email protected]
98
J Taiwan Periodontol 17. No1. 2012