SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2005 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 6

Intrusive Effects of the Connecticut Intrusion Arch and the Utility Intrusion Arch

Mihri AMASYALI
Erol AKIN
Şeniz KARAÇAY
Hüseyin ÖLMEZ
Deniz SAĞDIÇ
Pages
407–415
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was determined that both of the mechanics were effective on intrusion of anterior teeth.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the effects of two different arches, the Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and the Utility Intrusion Arch (UIA).
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 20 patients (15 girls and 5 boys) having Class I or Class II malocclusions with deep bite were divided into two groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was determined that both of the mechanics were effective on intrusion of anterior teeth.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Intrusion arches · Connecticut intrusion arch · Utility intrusion arch

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the effects of two different arches, the Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and the Utility Intrusion Arch (UIA). A total of 20 patients (15 girls and 5 boys) having Class I or Class II malocclusions with deep bite were divided into two groups. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment and after intrusion of upper incisors. Statistical evaluation of lateral cephalograms revealed that upper incisors were intruded and protruded, upper first molars were extruded, and lower incisors were protruded in both groups. Due to the extrusion of the molars, anterior and posterior facial heights increased. It was determined that both of the mechanics were effective on intrusion of anterior teeth.

Özet

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the effects of two different arches, the Connecticut Intrusion Arch (CIA) and the Utility Intrusion Arch (UIA). A total of 20 patients (15 girls and 5 boys) having Class I or Class II malocclusions with deep bite were divided into two groups. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment and after intrusion of upper incisors. Statistical evaluation of lateral cephalograms revealed that upper incisors were intruded and protruded, upper first molars were extruded, and lower incisors were protruded in both groups. Due to the extrusion of the molars, anterior and posterior facial heights increased. It was determined that both of the mechanics were effective on intrusion of anterior teeth.

🔖

Cite This Article

AMASYALI, M., AKIN, E., KARAÇAY, Ş., ÖLMEZ, H., SAĞDIÇ, D. (2022). Intrusive Effects of the Connecticut Intrusion Arch and the Utility Intrusion Arch. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 6, 407–415. https://ajindex.com/articles/611978

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Schudy FF. The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 38:19-39, 1968. Hotz R. Orthodontics in daily practice. Bern: Hans Huber; 1974. 3. 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 Dentofacial Orthop. 77:437-446, 1980. 4. Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. Dentofacial orthopedics with functional appliances. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1997. 5. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Ackermann JI, Thomas PM, Tulloch JFC. Contemprorary Orthodontics. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1979.
  2. Dake ML, Sinclair PM. A comparison of the Ricketts and Tweed type arch levelling techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 95:72-78, 1989. Poulton DR. Correction of extreme deep overbite with orthodontics and orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 96:275-280, 1989. 8. Bell WH, Jacobs JD, Legan H. Treatment of class II deep bite by orthodontic and surgical means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 85:1-20, 1984. 9. Engel G, Cornforth G, Damerell JM, Gordon J, Levy P, McAlpine J, Otto R, Walters R, Chaconas S. Treatment of deep-bite cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 77:1-13, 1980. Nanda R. Correction of deep overbite in adults. Dent Clin North Am. 41:67-87, 1997.
  3. Eberhart BB, Kuftinec MM, Baker IM. The relationship between bite depth and incisor angular change. Angle Orthod. 60:55-58, 1990. Levin RI. Deep bite treatment in relation to mandibular growth rotation. Eur J Orthod. 13:86-94, 1991. Nanda R. The differential diagnosis and treatment of excessive overbite. Dent Clin North Am. 25:69-84, 1981. Lindauer SJ. Orthodontic treatment planning. In: Nanda R, ed. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1997, pp: 23-49. Janzen EK. Balanced smile- a most important treatment objective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 72:359-372, 1977. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 53:262-284, 1967.
  4. Gianelly AA, Petras JC, Boffa J. Condylar position and Class II deep-bite, no-overjet malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 96:428-432, 1989.
  5. Melsen B, Bosch C. Different approaches to anchorage: a survey and an evaluation. Angle Orthod. 67:23-30, 1997.
  6. Parker CD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Skeletal and dental changes associated with the treatment of deep bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 107:382-393, 1995.
  7. Begg PR, Kesling PC. Begg orthodontic theory and technique. Philad