Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to provide intrusion of upper incisors with applying Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and Miniscrew and to evaluate the dental and skeletal cephalometric effects of these intrusion methods on individuals with deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors.

Methodology: The study includes 40 adults, without making sexual distinction, who have at least 4 mm deep bite caused by supraocclusion of upper incisors. Two study groups each consisting 20 individuals formed as CIA and Miniscrew groups. Skeletal, dental, soft tissue measurements were done on lateral cephalograms and apical root resorption measurements were done on standard periapical radiographs that were taken from upper four incisor teeth. Statistically, Paired Student’s t-test was used in intragroup comparements and independent Student’s t-test was used in the investigation of differences between groups. Nevertheless, the concern of variables that seen as risk factors with the amount of resorption was investigated with Pearson correlation analysis. 

Results: Successful intrusion of four upper incisor teeth with CIA and Mini screw methods and in-significant difference was determined between two methods. Protrusion of upper and lower incisor teeth decrease in interincisal angle and overbite and increase in overjet was stated by intrusion at both of the methods. The decline of the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar was observed in the CIA method. In soft tissue evaluation, decrease of upper lip length, upper lip thickness and distance of upper and lower lip to the Rickett’s plane was observed.

Conclusion: The methods used for intrusion showed to cause similar ratio of root resorption.

How to cite this article: Süer Tümen D, Hamamcı O. Comparison of cephalometric changes resulting from different upper incisor intrusion methods. Int Dent Res 2021;11(Suppl.1):177-94. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.suppl1.26

Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.