Te. Southard et al., INTRUSION ANCHORAGE POTENTIAL OF TEETH VERSUS RIGID ENDOSSEOUS IMPLANTS - A CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 107(2), 1995, pp. 115-120
The purpose of this study was to compare the intrusion anchorage poten
tial of teeth to osseointegrated titanium implants. Titanium implants
were surgically placed unilaterally in a healed mandibular fourth prem
olar extraction site in eight adult mongrel dogs. The implants were su
rgically uncovered 3 months later and second stage abutments with sold
ered edgewise brackets secured. Edgewise brackets were also placed on
the ipsilateral third premolars and on the contralateral third and fou
rth premolars. Segmental edgewise arch wires were placed between the i
mplant and the third premolar and between the contralateral third and
fourth premolars. Intrusion arch wire bends (v-bends) just mesial to t
he implant and the fourth premolar brackets were adjusted to apply a 5
0 to 60 gm intrusive force to the third premolars, bilaterally. Seven
weeks later this force was increased to approximately 100 gm. Force le
vels were monitored biweekly for a total period of 16 weeks. Superimpo
sition of initial and final periapical radiographs with bone markers d
emonstrated that for each dog the implant remained immobile and the th
ird premolar on the implant anchor side was intruded in a curved path.
On the contralateral side of the arch the dental anchor (fourth premo
lar) underwent an adverse reactive tip-back movement, and the third pr
emolar was not intruded. We conclude that rigid endosseous implants ar
e superior to dental anchorage for orthodontic intrusion of teeth and
offer a potential means to intrude anterior teeth in adult patients wi
th missing posterior teeth.