Â© 2006 - The Charles H. Tweed International Foundation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fig. 5. Molar intrusion: A) Maxillary 2nd molarintrusion B) Mandibular 1st and 2nd molarintrusion.Fig. 6. Asymmetric arch constriction; MI installed onthe midpalatal area.Fig. 7. Molar Protraction: MI Installed between 3 and4. Protraction force applied from MI to lever arm of2nd molar using NiTi coil spring.Fig. 8. Intermaxillary elastics from MI on maxilla tolower dention, to upright lower posterior teeth. Itmay be used for denture preparation in Tweed-Merrifield Technology.Fig. 9. Midline Correction: both the upper andlower midline shift to right to face midline shiftboth midline to left by using MI on the left buccalside.Fig. 10. Correction of occlusal plane canting: MI was installedbetween 4 and 5 on maxilla to intrude 4 and 5.39
Fig. 11. Intrusion and Torque Control of Incisors; MIwas installed between 2 central incisors and appliedintrusive force using elastic thread.for the technique can be used. To intrude upperincisors, the micro-implant can be installed in theinterdental space between the two central incisors.Fig. 12. Correction of open bite: Intrusion of molars using microimplants.Consider the anatomy of the interseptal bone and CR of the denitition for selection of the implant site. In typical patients,the height of placement should be around 8-10 mm from the arch wire. However, the vertical height of an MI can bedetermined by the force direction to be used.IV - 2 Choice of implantsSeveral sizes of MIs with diameters from 1.2 mm to 1.8 mm for different tasks and sites have been developed.Generally, a bigger diameter can withstand greater force. However, the diameter of 1.3 mm can withstand up to 450 gmof orthodontic force. Most orthodontic force is less than 300 grams. The tapered type seems to offer more “tightness”initially than does the cylinder type.So, the first choice for an MI is the diameter of 1.3 to 1.5 mm tapered type. However, the diameter of 1.5-1.7 mm can beused when there is enough space between the roots and greater force is needed. When intermaxillary elastics are used, weprefer to use the 1.5 mm diameter and circle type head because it is easier to wear elastics and is strong.V. Success and failure.The failure of an orthodontic microimplant means that the microimplant becomes loose during treatment. This usuallyhappens within the first three months following placement. If mechanical stability is not achieved immediately afterplacement, do not expect the microimplant to be stable. Initial mechanical stability is important, therefore, to the successof microimplant anchorage. In our experience, the microimplant almost always fails if it touches a root during placement.Thus, to prevent a microimplant from contacting the roots of adjacent teeth, the morphology of the roots and of theinterradicular space in which the microimplant is to be placed must be understood. In addition, the location, path andinsertion area of the microimplant, as well as the size of the microimplant, must be considered. At this point in time, wecannot achieve a 100% success rate when we use MI for temporary orthodontic anchorage. However, MI does have ahigh success rate of approximately 90%, a rate that is similar to that of miniplates and large titanium screws. A MI canbe used as temporary anchorage immediately after placement for any type of orthodontic tooth movement.SummaryWe are convinced that this anchorage technique is a powerful tool for significantly changing the orthodonticparadigm, although we need more study and experience.40
Page 1 and 2: © 2006
Page 5 and 6: Chairman of the Board Report 2006Ja
Page 7 and 8: Tribute: Dr. Herbert A. Klontz, Twe
Page 9 and 10: He was not only generous in Toronto
Page 11 and 12: Director of Education — Herb Klon
Page 13 and 14: Orthodontic Treatment of a Low Angl
Page 15: Fig. 5. McNamara’s NasionFrankfor
Page 19: REFERENCES1. Horn AJ. Facial height
Page 22 and 23: The more protrusive the lip profile
Page 24 and 25: Fig. 5. B, Tracings: extraction of
Page 26 and 27: The Extraction/Nonextraction Dilemm
Page 28 and 29: Fig. 6. Baxter’s posttreatment ce
Page 30 and 31: Fig. 16. Adams’ posttreatment cep
Page 32 and 33: The Extraction/Nonextraction Dilemm
Page 34 and 35: Fig. 12. Pretreatment dental castsF
Page 36 and 37: Microimplant Anchorage (MIA) in Ort
Page 38 and 39: Recently, with the rapid developmen
Page 43 and 44: Two Phase Treatment for Deep Bite P
Page 45 and 46: Fig. 7a. Post orthopedic cephalomet
Page 47: References:1. Dale J.G.. Longitudin

Â© 2006 - The Charles H. Tweed International Foundation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?