Intrusive Arch versus Miniscrew-Supported Intrusion for Deep Bite Correction.

Citation:
El Namrawy, M. M., F. El Sharaby, and M. Bushnak, "Intrusive Arch versus Miniscrew-Supported Intrusion for Deep Bite Correction.", Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, vol. 7, issue 11, pp. 1841-1846, 2019.

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Intrusion of maxillary incisors is the treatment of choice to correct deep bite problem in gummy smile patients.

AIM: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of miniscrew-supported intrusion versus intrusion arch for treatment of deep bite.

METHODS: The study sample consisted of 30 post pubertal patients (21 females and 9 males) with an age range from 17 to 29. They were divided into 2 groups (15 subjects in each group). Group 1 underwent maxillary incisor intrusion using miniscrews, and in group 2 intrusive arch was used. Pre and post-treatment lateral cephalometric x-rays and study models were made to evaluate the demo-skeletal effects. During the study period, no other intervention was attempted. Paired t-test was used to study the changes after treatment.

RESULTS: The mean amount of overbite correction was 2.6 ± 0.8 (0.49 mm per month) in the miniscrew-supported intrusion group and 2.9 ± 0.8 (0.60 mm per month) in the intrusive arch group. No statistically significant difference was found in the extent of maxillary incisor intrusion between the two systems. The two intrusion systems were statistically different in the extent of incisor proclination, as an intrusive arch group tended to proline upper incisors more than miniscrews-supported intrusion group.

CONCLUSION: Both systems successfully intruded the 4 maxillary incisors almost with no loss to the sagittal and vertical anchorage, although intrusive arch tended to proline upper incisors significantly.

Tourism