- Visibility 365 Views
- Downloads 426 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijodr.2025.024
-
CrossMark
Evaluation of bite opening by connecticut intrusion arch with and without cinch back on the distal end of the tube of first molars and mini- implant
- Author Details:
-
Sushmita Sudhakarrao Patil *
-
Amit Jaykumar Ajmera
-
Suchita Sadashiv Daokar
-
Gauri Hanmantrao Patil
-
Nilesh Dilip More
-
Akshay Namdev Kokate
-
Omkar Ishwar Diwate Patil
Nilesh Dilip More
Introduction: The intrusion of maxillary incisors is required for deep bite repair in patients with convex profiles, increased visibility of maxillary incisors, and normal or increased vertical dimension. For this, miniscrews or intrusion arches are frequently utilised. The Connecticut intrusion arch (CIA), a prefabricated intrusion arch, and temporary anchoring devices (TADs) are compared in the current study for orthodontic intrusion efficacy.
Aim: To evaluate and compare bite opening by Connecticut intrusion arch with and without cinch back and mini- implant.
Materials and Methods: Thirty individuals between the ages of 15 – 30 years receiving fixed orthodontic treatment participated in the current prospective research. CIA with cinch back were positioned in Group I, CIA without cinch back in group II and TADs were positioned for incursion in Group III. Treatment changes among the groups were evaluated using ANOVA test.
Results: There was no significant difference in terms of intrusion between the CIA with and without cinch back group, but there was a significant difference in terms of intrusion between the CIA with cinch back and mini-implant. The maxillary incisor exhibits intrusion and backward movement in CIAs with cinch back groups, while the maxillary incisor exhibits intrusion and forward movement in CIAs without cinch back groups.
Conclusions: Maxillary incisors intrusion with a minimal protrusion could be achieved with the connecticut intrusion arch with cinch back and mini-implant technique. Anchorage control was good with mini-implant.
Keywords: Bite opening, Connecticut intrusion arch, Intrusion, Temporary anchorage devices, Cinch back.
References
- Burstone CJ, van Steenbergen E, Hanley KJ. Modern Edgewise Mechanics and the Segmented Arch Technique. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut; 1995.
- Engel G, Cornforth G, Damerell JM, Gordon J, Levy P, McAlpine J, et al. Treatment of deep-bite cases. Am J Orthod. 1980;77(1):1–
- Melsen B, Agerbaek N, Markenstam G. Intrusion of incisors in adult patients with marginal bone loss. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96(3):232–41.
- Ng J, Major PW, Heo G, Flores-Mir C. True incisor intrusion attained during orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(2):212–
- Van Steenbergen E, Burstone CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Aartman IH. The relation between the point of force application and flaring of the anterior segment. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):730–5.
- Schwertner A, de Almeida RR, de Almeida-Pedrin RR, Fernandes TMF, Oltramari P, de Almeida MR. A prospective clinical trial of the effects produced by the Connecticut intrusion arch on the maxillary dental arch. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(4):500–6.
- de Almeida MR, Marçal AS, Fernandes TM, Vasconcelos JB, de Almeida RR, Nanda R. A comparative study of the effect of the intrusion arch and straight wire mechanics on incisor root resorption: a randomized, controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(1):20-6.
- Gupta N, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A. A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: an in vivo study. Int J Orthod Rehabil. 2017;8(4):129–35.
- Dermaut LR, Vanden Bulcke MM. Evaluation of intrusive mechanics of the type "segmented arch" on a macerated human skull using the laser reflection technique and holographic interferometry. Am J Orthod. 1986;89(3):251–63.
- Janzen EK. A balanced smile—a most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod. 1977;72(4):359–72.
- El-Mangoury NH. Orthodontic relapse in subjects with varying degrees of anteroposterior and vertical dysplasia. Am J Orthod. 1979;75(5):548–61.
- Cleall JF, BeGole EA. Diagnosis and treatment of Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1982;52(1):38–60.
- Nanda R, Marzban R, Kuhlberg A. The Connecticut Intrusion Arch. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32(12):708–15.
- Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod. 1977;72(1):1–22.
- Agrawal G. Deep bite: its etiology, diagnosis, and management: a review. J Orthod. 2016;2:12.
- AlMaghlouth B, AlMubarak A, Almaghlouth I, AlKhalifah R, Alsadah A, Hassan A. Orthodontic intrusion using temporary anchorage devices compared to other orthodontic intrusion methods: a systematic review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2021;11:11–9.
- Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, TakanoYamamoto T. Comparison of the intrusion effect on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(5):654–60.
- Goel P, Tandon R, Agrawal KK. A comparative study of different intrusion methods and their effect on maxillary incisors. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2014;4(3):186–91.
- Amasyali M, Sağdiç D, Ölmez H, Akin E, Karaçay Ş. Intrusive effects of the comparative intrusion arch and the utility intrusion arch. Turk J Med Sci. 2005;35(6):407–15.
- Polat Ozsoy O, Arman Ozcirpici A, Veziroglu F. Miniscrews for upper incisor intrusion. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):412–6.
- Raj A, Acharya SS, Mohanty P, Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, et al. Comparison of intrusive effects of mini screws and Burstone intrusive arch: a radiographic study. J Res Adv Dent. 2015;4(2):102–9.
- Weiland FJ, Bantleon HP, Droschl H. Evaluation of continuous arch and segmented arch comparison techniques in adult patients—a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(6):647–
- Şenışık NE, Türkkahraman H. Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deep-bite patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(6):723–33.
- Hor AB. Ust Kesici diş intruzyonunun sınıf II bölüm 2 malokluzyonlu erişkinlerde dentofasiyal yapılara etkisinin incelenmesi [thesis]. Samsun, Turkey: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi;
- Kinzel J, Aberschek P, Mischak I, Droschl H. Study of the extent of torque, protrusion and intrusion of the incisors in the context of Class II, division 2 treatment in adults. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63(4):283–99.
- Barton KA. Overbite changes in the Begg and edgewise techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1972;62(1):48–55.
- Demirhanoglu M. Evaluation of the effects and stability of bite opening mechanics in deep-bite cases treated with edgewise mechanics [PhD thesis]. Ankara: University of Hacettepe; 1990.
- Parker CD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Skeletal and dental changes associated with the treatment of deep bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(4):382-93.
- Dake ML, Sinclair PM. A comparison of the Ricketts and Tweed- type arch leveling techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95(1):72–8.
- Cakırer B. Comparison of segmented arch technique and Bioprogressive Therapy in the treatment of deep bite [PhD thesis]. Ankara: University of Hacettepe; 1997. 132 Patil et al / IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research 2025;11(2):124-132
- Gupta N, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A. A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: an in vivo study. Int J Orthod Rehabil. 2017;8(4):129–35.
- Upadhyay M, Nagaraj K, Yadav S, Saxena R. Mini-implants for en masse intrusion of maxillary anterior teeth in a severe Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod. 2008;35:79–89.