The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini Implants: A Prospective Study

Prateek Shakti, G Suja Ani, Elbe Peter, Khushtar Haider

Keywords : Connecticut intrusion arch, Deep bite, Intrusion, Mini implants, Segmental intrusion arch

Citation Information : Shakti P, Ani GS, Peter E, Haider K. Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini Implants: A Prospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (8):907-913.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3136

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aimed to compare cephalometrically the rate of maxillary incisor intrusion using mini implants, Connecticut intrusion arches, and segmental intrusion arches. Materials and methods: Thirty-two adult patients with deep bite were divided into three groups: 10 patients in mini implant and Connecticut intrusion arch group each and 12 patients in segmental intrusion arch group. Bilateral mini implants were used for intrusion in Group 1. Connecticut intrusion arch and Burstone's three-piece intrusion arch were used for intrusion in Group 2 and Group 3, respectively. Intrusion was carried out in all the patients for 4 months. Lateral cephalograms were taken just after alignment and leveling (T1) and after 4 months of intrusion (T2). Results: The mean amount of intrusion observed was 1.7 mm (0.425 mm/month) in mini implant group, 1.4 mm (0.35 mm/month) in Connecticut intrusion arch group, and 1.66 mm (0.415 mm/month) in segmental intrusion arch group. No statistically significant difference was found in the extent of incisor intrusion in the three groups (p <0.05). Conclusion: The study failed to reject the null hypothesis, and there was no statistically significant difference in the amount and rate of incisor intrusion achieved among the three groups (p >0.05). Clinical Significance: Significant amount of incisor intrusion was carried out by all the three methods. There was no statistically significant difference in the amount and rate of incisor intrusion achieved by the three methods. Clinically, mini implants can be considered superior to the conventional techniques as it provides absolute anchorage which eliminates unwanted effects of incisor intrusion.

  1. Bishara SE. Textbook of orthodontics. New Delhi:Saunders; 2001.
  2. Otto RL, Anholm JM, Engel GA. A comparative analysis of intrusion of incisor teeth achieved in adults and children according to facial type. Am J Orthod 1980;77(4):437–446. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90108-6.
  3. Braun S, Marcotte MR. Rationale of the segmented approach to orthodontic treatment. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1995;108(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70060-9.
  4. Carano A, Velo S, Leone P, et al. Clinical applications of the mini screw anchorage systems. J ClinOrthod 2005;39(1):9–24.
  5. Nanda R, Marzban R, Kuhlberg A. The Connecticut intrusion arch. J ClinOrthod 1998;32(12):708–715.
  6. Ohnishi H, Yagi T, Yashuda Y, et al. A mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage in a deep overbite case. Angle Orthod 2005;75:444–452. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[444:AMFOAI]2.0.CO;2.
  7. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, et al.Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2008;133(5):654–660. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.047.
  8. Jain RK, Premkumar S, Manjula WS. Comparison of intrusion effects on maxillary incisors among mini implant anchorage, J hooks headgear and utility arch. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(7):ZC21–ZC24. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8339.4554.
  9. Ozsoy OP, Ozcirpici AA, Veziroglu F, et al. Comparison of the intrusive effects of mini screws and utility arches. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop 2011;139(4):526–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.040.
  10. Ozsoy OP, Ozcirpici AA, Veziroglu F. Miniscrews for upper incisor intrusion. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(4):412–416. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn122.
  11. Senisik NE, Teurkkahraman H. Treatment effect of intrusion arches and mini implant systems in deep bite patients. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2012;141(6):723–733. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.024.
  12. Burstone CR. Deep overbite correction by intrusion. Am J Orthod 1977;72:1–22. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90121-x.
  13. Ma D, Wang XX, Jin SM, et al. Comparison of two treatment methods for maxillary incisor intrusion. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2013;22(2):206–209.
  14. Mittal R, Patil AK, Ganeshkar SV. Correction of deep overbite with mini implants in adult patients. Orthod Cyber J 2009;1:1–12.
  15. Krishnanayak US, Goyal V, Godhrawala F, et al. Comparison of skeletodental changes occurring during deep overbite correction with a mini implant anchorage system and the utility arches reinforced by a transpalatal arch. J Indian Orthod Soc 2011;45(1):9–14. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1003.
  16. Hans MG, Kishiyama C, Parker SH, et al. Cephalometric evaluation of two treatment strategies for deep overbite correction. Angle Orthod 1994;64(4):265–276. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0265:CEOTTS>2.0.CO;2.
  17. Weiland FJ, Bantleon HP, Droschl H. Evaluation of continuous arch and segmented arch leveling techniques in adults patients—a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop 1996;110(6):647–652. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)80042-4.
  18. Amasyali M, Sagdic D, Olmez H, et al. Intrusive effects of the Connecticut intrusion arch and the utility intrusion arch. Turk J Med Sci 2005;35:407–415.
  19. Schudy FF. The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 1968;38(1):19–39. DOI: 10.1043/0003- 3219(1968)038<0019:TCOVOI>2.0.CO;2.
  20. Dake ML, Sinclair PM. A comparison of the Ricketts and Tweed type arch leveling techniques. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop 1989;95(1):72–78. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90138-8.
  21. Verma M, Chithranjan AB, Padmanabhan S, et al. Comparative evaluation of intrusion and root resorption using Burstone and Connecticut intrusion arches—an in-vivo study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2010;44(3):4–11.
  22. Sana S, Bansal A, Sami L, et al. Anterior deep bite malocclusion treated with Connecticut intrusion arch: biomechanical consideration. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(5):ZD30–ZD32. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8357.4396.
  23. Janakiraman N, Gill P, Upadhyay M, et al. Response of the maxillary dentition to a statistically determinate one-couple system with tip-back mechanics: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2015;2:1–8.
  24. Lu S, Wang Z, Ni X, et al. Establishment and biomechanical analysis of three-dimensionalnonlinear finite element model of three-piece segment arch. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi XueZaZhi 2013;31(1):74–79.
  25. Pearson LE, Pearson BL. Rapid maxillary expansion with incisor intrusion: a study of vertical control. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop 1999;115(5):576–582. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70283-0.
  26. Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, et al. Anterior maxillary intrusion and retraction with corticotomy-facilitated orthodontic treatment and Burrstone three piece intrusion arch. J Clin Diagn Res 2013;7(12):3099–3101. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/7411.3869.
  27. Arun Raj MR, Acharya SS, Mohanty P, et al. Comparison of intrusive effects of mini screws and Burrstone intrusive arch: a radiographic study. J Res Adv Dent 2015;4(2):102–109.
  28. Min-Ho J. Vertical control of a Class II deep bite malocclusion with the use of orthodontic mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;155(2):264–275. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.08.016.
  29. Uzuka S, Chae JM, Tai K, et al. Adult gummy smile correction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices. J World Fed Orthod 2018;7(1):34–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2018.01.004.
  30. Peddu R, Mallavarapu K, Lanka D, et al. Implant-supported maxillary incisor intrusion. Indian J Dent Sci 2018;10(2):109–112. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_15_18.
  31. Gupta N, Tripathi T, Rai P, et al. A comparative evaluation of bite opening by temporary anchorage devices and Connecticut intrusion arch: an in vivostudy. Int J OrthodRehabil 2017;8(4):129–135. DOI: 10.4103/ijor.ijor_28_17.
  32. Kumar P, Datana S, Londhe SM, et al. Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch. Med J Armed Forces India 2015;73(1):65–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.10.006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.