COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INTRUSION

USING MINI- IMPLANTS AND BURSTONE

INTRUSION TECHNIQUE
INTRODUCTION
AIM

The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the effects of

intrusion of upper anterior teeth by using temporary anchorage devices
(mini-implant) and Burstone intrusion arch.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the rate of intrusion.

2. To assess the change in axial inclination or torque of upper incisors.

3. To evaluate the vertical displacement of upper incisors.

4. To determine the change in upper permanent first molar axial

inclination.

5. To evaluate the vertical displacement of upper permanent first molar.

PATIENTS AND METHODS
• This prospective clinical study was approved by Institutional Review
Board and Ethical Committee of Drs. SUDHA & NAGESWARA RAO
SIDDHARTHA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES, NTR
University Of Health Sciences, Vijayawada.
Inclusion criteria:
• Maxillary incisor exposure beyond 3.0 mm in rest position and gingival
smile of at least 3.0 mm on posed smile.
• Deep overbite ≥ 3.0 mm.
• Post pubertal growth status - completion of active growth.
Exclusion criteria:
• History of previous orthodontic treatment.
• History of dental trauma to maxillary dentition.
• Short root anomalies, abnormal root shapes.
• Extremely procumbent or retroclined maxillary incisors
• Gingival and periodontal disorders.
• Craniofacial disorders.
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
• The difference in the intrusion achieved by mini-implant is greater and
statistically significant than the amount of intrusion achieved by using
Burstone intrusion arch.

• The rate of intrusion obtained by mini implant is 0.77 mm/month, and

by Burstone intrusion arch is about 0.45 mm/month.
• Similar results with respect to intrusion were found from a study that was
done by Krishna Nayak et al achieved 3.29 mm by mini implants and 1.29
mm by utility arches, and Creekmore intruded 6 mm of incisors in a
duration of 1 year, Polat osozy et al achieved 1.92 mm of upper incisor
intrusion in 4.5 months and Kim et al who reported 4 mm of maxillary
incisor intrusion in 7 months.
 Effect on Incisors:

• The amount of intrusion achieved by mini implants is statistically more when

compared to Burstone intrusion arch, clinically both groups achieved good
amount of intrusion in the limited period of 4 months time.

• The amount and rate of intrusion of incisors depends on the number of teeth
involved, the point of force application, and the magnitudes of forces.

• Change in the axial inclination of incisors mainly depends on the distance

from the centre of resistance of the anterior segment to the point of
application of force.
 Effects on Molars:

• There is mild extrusion of molar in the Burstone intrusion group, occurred

because of the clockwise moment generated at the molar.

• The extrusion is not so severe, that it can effect the mandibular plane. The
extrusion is controlled by using TPA and 0.019x0.025 SS stabilizing arch
wire on buccal side from molar to canine on each side and by using TMA
wire.

• In implant group the change in molar position is minimal because the molar
is not considered as an anchorage unit for intrusion of incisors, as a result no
extrusion was observed in this group, which indicates it is beneficial in
patients with increased lower anterior facial height.
 CONCLUSION
• The rate of intrusion is more in mini implant group compared to the Burstone
intrusion arch group.
• The change in axial inclination of incisors is more in mini implant group
compared to the Burstone intrusion arch group.
• The change in vertical displacement of centroid, incisal tip and apex of incisors
are more in mini implant group compared to Burstone intrusion arch group.
• The change in molar axial inclination is more in Burstone intrusion arch group
which shows mild distal crown moment; where as in mini implant group mild
mesial crown moment is observed.
• The change in vertical displacement of molars is more in Burstone intrusion
arch group, which shows mild extrusion of molars radiographically but
clinically it is insignificant.