» Articles » PMID: 29134232

Skeletally Anchored Mesialization of Molars Using Digitized Casts and Two Surface-matching Approaches : Analysis of Treatment Effects

Overview
Journal J Orofac Orthop
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2017 Nov 15
PMID 29134232
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To (1) quantify the three-dimensional treatment effect of a Mesialslider appliance using superimposed digital models, (2) to evaluate anchorage loss (measured by incisor displacement), and (3) to assess agreement between two different matching approaches, i.e., control point (CP)-based and iterative closest point (ICP) matching.

Methods: In a retrospective study, the effects of a skeletally anchored uni- and bilateral mesialization appliance (Mesialslider) as well as simultaneous mesialization and distalization appliance (Mesio-Distalslider) were evaluated in 48 subjects (aged 11-53 years). Pre- and posttreatment casts were digitized and superimposed with two different approaches, i.e., using ten manually selected control points located at the anterior palate and by means of an automated ICP-matching approach using a standardized palatal reference area. The treatment effects were evaluated using control points on the maxillary central incisors and maxillary molar teeth, and the methods were compared through the application of linear regression analyses and computation of alignment errors.

Results: Average upper molar mesialization was 6.3 ± 2.6 mm. Anchorage loss, designated as the mean amount of upper incisor displacement, was less than 0.5 mm in all dimensions investigated. Using the measurement method sufficient registration was possible using both approaches and corresponding tooth movements were significantly correlated (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Accurate measurements of tooth displacement can be performed using both CP- and ICP-based matching approaches. Within the limits of performing a retrospective study, a premolar width of molar mesialization appeared possible without clinically relevant anchorage loss.

Citing Articles

Validation of three-dimensional digital model superimpositions based on palatal structures in patients with maximum anterior tooth retraction following premolar extraction.

Liu J, Koh K, Choi S, Kim J, Cha J Korean J Orthod. 2022; 52(4):258-267.

PMID: 35875849 PMC: 9314216. DOI: 10.4041/kjod21.126.


Maxillary space closure using a digital manufactured Mesialslider in a single appointment workflow.

Wilhelmy L, Willmann J, Tarraf N, Wilmes B, Drescher D Korean J Orthod. 2022; 52(3):236-245.

PMID: 35418521 PMC: 9117792. DOI: 10.4041/kjod21.203.


Comparison and reproducibility of three methods for maxillary digital dental model registration in open bite patients.

Castillo A, Vilanova L, Janson G, Arriola-Guillen L, Garib D, Miranda F Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021; 25(2):269-279.

PMID: 34543518 PMC: 8934310. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12535.


Does the choice of the reference model affect the results of 3D-3D superimposition procedure? A comparison of different protocols for personal identification.

Palamenghi A, De Angelis D, Cellina M, Sforza C, Cattaneo C, Gibelli D Int J Legal Med. 2021; 135(5):1879-1886.

PMID: 33758971 PMC: 8354963. DOI: 10.1007/s00414-021-02550-x.


Assessment of methods used for 3-dimensional superimposition of craniofacial skeletal structures: a systematic review.

Mai D, Stucki S, Gkantidis N PeerJ. 2020; 8:e9263.

PMID: 32547877 PMC: 7278889. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9263.


References
1.
Sauppe S, Abkai C, Hourfar J, Ludwig B, Ulrici J, Hell E . Automatic fusion of lateral cephalograms and digital volume tomography data-perspective for combining two modalities in the future. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015; 44(9):20150073. PMC: 5083899. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150073. View

2.
Talaat S, Kaboudan A, Breuning H, Ragy N, Elshebiny T, Kula K . Reliability of linear and angular dental measurements with the OrthoMechanics Sequential Analyzer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147(2):264-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.027. View

3.
Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B . Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998; 13(3):201-9. View

4.
Zachrisson B, Mjor I . Remodeling of teeth by grinding. Am J Orthod. 1975; 68(5):545-53. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(75)90085-8. View

5.
Lai E, Yao C, Chang J, Chen I, Chen Y . Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(5):636-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017. View