Outcomes and stability in patients with anterior open bite and long anterior face height treated with temporary anchorage devices and a maxillary intrusion splint.

INTRODUCTION: Temporary skeletal anchorage devices now offer the possibility of closing anterior open bites and decreasing anterior face height by intruding maxillary posterior teeth, but data for treatment outcomes are lacking. This article presents outcomes and posttreatment changes for consecutive patients treated with a standardized technique. METHODS: The sample included 33 consecutive patients who had intrusion of maxillary posterior teeth with a maxillary occlusal splint and nickel-titanium coil springs to temporary anchorage devices in the zygomatic buttress area, buccal and apical to the maxillary molars. Of this group, 30 had adequate cephalograms available for the period of treatment, 27 had cephalograms including 1-year posttreatment, and 25 had cephalograms from 2 years or longer. RESULTS: During splint therapy, the mean molar intrusion was 2.3 mm. The mean decrease in anterior face height was 1.6 mm, less than expected because of a 0.6-mm mean eruption of the mandibular molars. During the postintrusion orthodontics, the mean change in maxillary molar position was a 0.2-mm extrusion, and there was a mean 0.5-mm increase in face height. Positive overbite was maintained in all patients, with a slight elongation (<2 mm) of the incisors contributing to this. During the 1 year of posttreatment retention, the mean changes were a further eruption of 0.5 mm of the maxillary molars, whereas the mandibular molars intruded by 0.6 mm, and there was a small decrease in anterior face height. Changes beyond 1 year posttreatment were small and attributable to growth rather than relapse in tooth positions. CONCLUSIONS: Intrusion of the maxillary posterior teeth can give satisfactory correction of moderately severe anterior open bites, but 0.5 to 1.5 mm of reeruption of these teeth is likely to occur. Controlling the vertical position of the mandibular molars so that they do not erupt as the maxillary teeth are intruded is important in obtaining a decrease in face height.

Modified miniplates for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: placement and removal surgeries.

PURPOSE: Skeletal anchorage systems are increasingly used in orthodontics. This article describes the techniques of placement and removal of modified surgical miniplates used for temporary orthodontic anchorage and reports surgeons' perceptions of their use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 97 consecutive orthodontic patients having miniplates placed as an adjunct to treatment. A total of 200 miniplates were placed by 9 oral surgeons. Patients and surgeons completed questionnaires after placement and removal surgeries. RESULTS: Fifteen miniplates needed to be removed prematurely. Antibiotics and anti-inflammatories were generally prescribed after placement but not after removal surgery. Most surgeries were performed with the patient under local anesthesia. Placement surgery lasted on average between 15 and 30 minutes per plate and was considered by the surgeons to be very easy to moderately easy. The surgery to remove the miniplates was considered easier and took less time. The patients' chief complaint was swelling, lasting on average 5.3 +/- 2.8 days after placement and 4.5 +/- 2.6 days after removal. CONCLUSIONS: Although miniplate placement/removal surgery requires the elevation of a flap, this was considered an easy and relatively short surgical procedure that can typically be performed with the patient under local anesthesia without complications, and it may be considered a safe and effective adjunct for orthodontic treatment.

Patients' and orthodontists' perceptions of miniplates used for temporary skeletal anchorage: a prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Temporary skeletal anchorage is a relatively recent addition to orthodontic treatment. Surgical miniplates, modified with intraoral attachments, provide an alternative to miniscrews for skeletal anchorage. In this study, we wanted to determine patients' and providers' perceptions of miniplate use during orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Consecutive patients having miniplates placed as part of their treatment completed questionnaires about their experiences during surgery and orthodontic treatment. A total of 200 miniplates were placed for 97 patients. The 30 orthodontists treating these patients also completed questionnaires concerning miniplate success, handling complexity, and whether these devices simplified treatment. RESULTS: The success rate was 92.5%. The devices were well tolerated by the patients. After a year, 72% of the patients reported that they did not mind having the implant, and 82% said that the surgical experience was better than expected, with little or no pain. The most frequent problems were postsurgical swelling, lasting 5 days on average, and cheek irritation experienced initially by more than a third of the patients, but it lessened over time. The clinicians reported that these devices were easy to use and greatly simplified orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Miniplates are well accepted by patients and providers and are a safe and effective adjunct for complex orthodontic treatments.

Systematic review of the experimental use of temporary skeletal anchorage devices in orthodontics.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to review the experimental literature to determine what is known about functional and morphological tissue reactions around orthodontically loaded temporary skeletal anchorage devices. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database and the reference citations in published articles were searched to the end of April 2006. The inclusion criteria were animal studies about orthodontically loaded skeletal anchorage consisting of metallic bone plates or screw implants of 2.2 mm diameter or less. Data on healing time, force application, stability, side effects, and osseointegration were collected by 2 independent readers. RESULTS: Eight articles met the selection criteria. The healing times ranged from 0 to 12 weeks, and the amount of force varied from 25 to 500 g. Implant stability was generally achieved without severe side effects. Direct bone-screw contact was reported to be 10% to 58%, and osseointegration increased with loading time. Nevertheless, no significant difference in bone-screw contact was found between loaded and unloaded screw implants, or between tension and pressure sides of loaded implants. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights some positive experimental findings that apply in clinical practice. However, questions concerning optimal force systems, surgical techniques and placement, and healing times remain. Future research should be well controlled and based on standardized protocols to test specific hypotheses.