Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Korean J Orthod.  2012 Dec;42(6):280-290. 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.6.280.

Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. drwhite@unitel.co.kr
  • 2Smile Future Dental Clinic, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract


OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the effects of conventional and orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage on tooth movement and arch-dimension changes in the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 (CII div.1) patients.
METHODS
CII div.1 patients treated with extraction of the maxillary first and mandibular second premolars and sliding mechanics were allotted to conventional anchorage group (CA, n = 12) or OMI anchorage group (OA, n = 12). Pre- and post-treatment three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed using the best-fit method. Linear, angular, and arch-dimension variables were measured with software program. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Compared to the CA group, the OMI group showed more backward movement of the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine (MXCI, MXLI, MXC, respectively; 1.6 mm, p < 0.001; 0.9 mm, p < 0.05; 1.2 mm, p < 0.001); more intrusion of the MXCI and MXC (1.3 mm, 0.5 mm, all p < 0.01); less forward movement of the maxillary second premolar, first, and second molars (MXP2, MXM1, MXM2, respectively; all 1.0 mm, all p < 0.05); less contraction of the MXP2 and MXM1 (0.7 mm, p < 0.05; 0.9 mm, p < 0.001); less mesial-in rotation of the MXM1 and MXM2 (2.6degrees, 2.5degrees, all p < 0.05); and less decrease of the inter-MXP2, MXM1, and MXM2 widths (1.8 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
In treatment of CII div.1 malocclusion, OA provided better anchorage and less arch-dimension change in the maxillary posterior teeth than CA during en-masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth.

Keyword

Three-dimensional analysis; Tooth movement; Arch dimension change; Class II division 1 malocclusion; Conventional anchorage; Mini-implant anchorage

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Contracts
Dentition
Humans
Incisor
Malocclusion
Mechanics
Molar
Tooth
Tooth Movement
Full Text Links
  • KJOD
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2026 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr