Intrusion and Retraction of Maxillary Anteriors with LVMA
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Aim: To compare anterior intrusion and retraction effects of Long Vertical Molar Arm (LVMA) group and routine fixed mechanotherapy group cephalometrically.
Materials and Methods: A total of 42 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment after the extraction of first and second maxillary premolars were stratified into 2 groups (n=21 in each group). Patients in group 1 obtained maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction treatment using LVMA. While group 2 patients received conventional sliding mechanics with molar hook anchorage. Patients were bonded with MBT 0.022″ slot brackets and 0.019 × 0.025″ stainless steel (SS) arch wires, with 250–300 g retraction force applied by means of elastomeric chains. Before and after treatment cephalograms were assessed by means of Dolphin Imaging Software. Measurement reliability was verified by intraclass correlation. Intergroup and pre-post comparisons were analyzed using independent and paired t-tests in SPSS v21.
Results: With respect to skeletal malocclusion statistically no significant differences was found between two groups. LVMA group showed significantly greater upper incisor retraction (P = 0.007) and better vertical control, reflected in SN–OP, U1–MH, U6–MH with a P value of 0.017, 0.011, and 0.004 respectively. Soft tissue changes, including nasolabial angle, were not significant (P = 0.105).
Conclusion: LVMA mechanics provide effective maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction with superior dental control and reduced molar extrusion compared to conventional sliding mechanics, while producing favourable soft tissue effects.
Files
ARATHI.pdf
Files
(910.4 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:ffa31c3f70e30e2f08db346786637122
|
910.4 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Hotz R, Muhlemann H. Die Funktion in der Beurteilung und Therapie von Bissanomalien [The function in judgment and therapy of bite abnormalities]. SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd. 1952 Jun;62 (6):592-606. 2. Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. Dentofacial orthopedics with functional appliances. St. Louis, Mosby Co. 1985 May 1. 3. Brizuela M, Ines D. Excessive Gingival Display. [Updated 2023 Mar 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/ books/NBK470437/ 4. Venugopal A, Manzano P, Ahmed F, Vaiid N, Bowman SJ. Gummy smiles: etiologies, diagnoses & formulating a clinically effective treatment protocol. In Seminars in orthodontics. 2024 Dec 1;30(5).482-501. 5. Reddy SR, Jonnalagadda VN. Mini-implant assisted gummy smile and deep bite correction. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2021 Apr 1;12(2): 199-204. 6. Shetty SK, Soonthodu RS, Matur G. Intrusion Mechanics in Orthodontics. 2024 Apr;9(4):2815-2820. 7. Ritchie C, McGregor S, Bearn DR. Temporary anchorage devices and the forces and effects on the dentition and surrounding structures during orthodontic treatment: a scoping review. European journal of orthodontics. 2023 Jun 1;45(3):324-37. 8. Verma RK, Jena AK, Singh SP, Utreja AK. Removable molar power arm. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2013 Jul 1;4(3):353-5. 9. Ruellas AC, Pithon MM, Santos RL. Maxillary incisor retraction: evaluation of different mechanisms. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2013;18:101-7. 10. Kaushik A, Sidhu MS, Grover S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of intrusive effects of miniscrew, Connecticut intrusion arch, and utility intrusion arch–An in vivo study. Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (India Section). 2015 Dec 1;29 (4):69-76. 11. Varlık SK, Alpakan ÖO, Türköz Ç. Deepbite correction with incisor intrusion in adults: a long-term cephalometric study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2013 Sep 1;144(3):414-9. 12. Amasyali M, Sağdiç D, Ölmez H, Akin E, Karaçay Ş. Intrusive effects of the connecticut intrusion arch and the utility intrusion arch. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2005;35(6):407-15. 13. Polat-Ozsoy O, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Veziroglu F. Miniscrews for upper incisor intrusion. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009 Aug 1;31 (4):412-6. 14. Jain RK, Kumar SP, Manjula W.Comparison of Intrusion Effects on Maxillary Incisors Among Mini Implant Anchorage, J-Hook Headgear and Utility Arch.J Clin of Diagn Res.2014; 8(7):ZC21-ZC24. 15. Raj A, Acharya SS, Mohanty P, Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vikram NR. Comparison of intrusive effects of mini screws and Burrstone intrusive arch: a radiographic study. Advances in Human Biology. 2015 May 1;5(2):49-55. 16. Kumar P, Datana S, Londhe SM, Kadu A. Rate of intrusion of maxillary incisors in Class II Div 1 malocclusion using skeletal anchorage device and Connecticut intrusion arch. medical journal armed forces india. 2017 Jan 1;73(1):65-73. 17. Phor D, Sharma A, Upadhyay S. Comparison of Intrusive Effects of Miniscrews and Utility Arch and Their Effects on Root Resorption. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2018 September; 17 (9):10-14. 18. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano- Yamamoto T. Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133:654-60. 19. Goel P, Tandon R, Agrawal KK. A comparative study of different intrusion methods and their effect on maxillary incisors. journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 2014 Sep 1;4(3):186-91. 20. DeVincenzo JP, Winn MW. Maxillary incisor intrusion and facial growth. The Angle Orthodontist. 1987 Oct 1;57(4):279-89. 21. Şenışık NE, Türkkahraman H. Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2012 Jun 1;141(6):723-33. 22. El Namrawy MM, Sharaby FA, Bushnak MA. Mini-screw for deep bite correction: A Prospective clinical trial. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2015;14:8-13.