Article Menu

Export Article

More by Authors Links

Article Data

  • Views 980
  • Dowloads 218

Original Research

Open Access

Craniomaxillofacial Changes Using High-Pull J-Hook Headgear and Mini-Implant Anchorage in Adolescents: A Structural Superimposition Method

  • Sunock Yun1
  • Jae Hyun Park2,3
  • Na-Young Chang4
  • Hye Young Seo5
  • Jae-Hyun Sung6
  • Su-Jeong Hong7
  • Jong-Moon Chae2,4,*,

1Private practice, Beauty Line Dental Clinic, Jinju, Korea

2Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A.T. Still University, Mesa, Ariz, USA

3Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

4Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Wonkwang, Wonkwang Dental Research Institute, Iksan, Korea

5School of Big Data and Financial Statistics, Wonkwang University College of Natural Sciences, Iksan, Korea

6Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea

7Private practice, Prime Hanvitt Dental Clinic, Daejeon, Korea

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-45.6.11 Vol.45,Issue 6,December 2021 pp.433-440

Published: 01 December 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Jong-Moon Chae E-mail: jongmoon@wku. ac.kr

PDF (467.32 kB) View Full-text

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the craniomaxillofacial changes when using high-pull J-hook headgear (HPJH) and mini-implants (MIs) as maxillary anchorage in adolescents. Study Design: 40 female adolescents with dentoalvolar protrusion were divided into 2 groups; the HPJH group (n=20) and the MI group (n=20). Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment (T0) and after anterior tooth retraction (T1) were superimposed on the stable structures and then craniomaxillofacial changes were evaluated. Results: The cranial base angle, SNB, and facial angle decreased in the HPJH group but increased in the MI group. ANB decreased more in the MI group than in the HPJH group. Mandibular plane angle increased in the HPJH group but decreased in the MI group. Facial height index increased in the MI group while it showed no change in the HPJH group. Mandibular true rotation occurred clockwise in the HPJH group and counterclockwise in the MI group. Maxillary central incisors were intruded and retracted more in the MI group than in the HPJH group. Maxillary first molars were extruded in the HPJH group and were intruded in the MI group. Maxillary first molars were protracted more in the HPJH group than in the MI group. Mandibular central incisors were retracted more in the HPJH group than the MI group. Mandibular first molars were extruded more in the MI group than in the HPJH group.


Keywords

Mini-implant; High-pull J-hook headgear; Anchorage; Structural superimposition

Cite and Share

Sunock Yun,Jae Hyun Park,Na-Young Chang,Hye Young Seo,Jae-Hyun Sung,Su-Jeong Hong,Jong-Moon Chae. Craniomaxillofacial Changes Using High-Pull J-Hook Headgear and Mini-Implant Anchorage in Adolescents: A Structural Superimposition Method. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021. 45(6);433-440.

URL:

https://www.jocpd.com/articles/10.17796/1053-4625-45.6.11

References

1. Tweed CH. Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedures. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1944;30:405-28.

2. Merrifield LL. The systems of directional force. J Charles H Tweed Int Found. 1982;10:15-29.

3. Buschang PH, Jacob HB. Mandibular rotation revisited: What makes it so important? Semin Orthod. 2014;20;299-315.

4. Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:593-600.

5. Gebeck TR, Merrifield LL. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment analysis- concepts and values, part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107:434-43.

6. Gebeck TR, Merrifield LL. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment analysis- concepts and values, part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107:541-7.

7. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano T. Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:615-24.

8. Merrifield LL, Cross JJ. Directional forces. Am J Orthod. 1970;57:435-64.

9. Creekmore TD, Eklund, MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:266-9.

10. Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997; 31:763-7.

11. Park HS, Kwon TG, Kwon OW. Treatment of open bite with microscrew implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126:627-36.

12. Chae JM. A new protocol of Tweed-Merrifield directional force technology with microimplant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 130:100-9.

13. Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:615-24.

14. Arat ZM, Rübendüz M, Akgül AA. The displacement of craniofacial reference landmarks during puberty: A comparison of three superimposition methods. Angle Orthod. 2003;73;374-80.

15. Ricketts RM. A four-step method to distinguish orthodontic changes from natural growth. J Clin Orthod. 1975;9:208-15.

16. Steiner C. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod. 1959;29:8-29.

17. Bjork A, Skieller V. Facial development and tooth eruption: An implant study at the age of puberty. Am J Orthod. 1972;62:339-83.

18. Bjork A, Skieller V. Postnatal growth of and development of the maxillary complex. In: McNamara JR JA (ed). Factors Affecting the Growth of the Midface, monograph 6, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan, 61-99, 1976.

19. Bjork A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod. 1983;5:1-46.

20. Björk A. Facial growth in man, studied with the aid of metallic implants. Acta Odontol Scand. 1955;13:9-34.

21. Melsen B. The cranial base: The postnatal development of the cranial base studied histologically on human autopsy material. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974;Suppl 32:1-126.

22. Nielsen IL. Maxillary superimposition: A comparison of three methods forcephalometric evaluation of growth and treat ment changes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1989;95:422-31.

23. Buschang PH, LaPalme L, Tanguay R, Demirjian A. The technical reliability of superimposition on cranial base and mandibular structures. Eur J Orthod. 1986;8:152-6.

24. Duterloo HS, Planché PG. Handbook of cephalometric superimposition. 1st Ed.: Quintessence; p. 115-9, 2011.

25. Doppel DM, Damon WM, Joondeph DR, Little RM. An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105:161-8.

26. Yamaguchi K, Nanda RS. The effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on the mandibular position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 100:443-52.

27. Sung JH, Kwan OW, Kyung HM, Park KD. Longitudinal data of craniofacial growth from lateral cephalometrics in Korean with normal occlusion. 1st Ed.: Jung Won co. Inc.; 2001.

28. Betzenberger D, Ruf S, Pancherz H. The compensatory mechanism in highangle malocclusions: a comparison of subjects in the mixed and permanent dentition. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:27-32.

29. Kim YE, Nanda RS, Sinha PK. Transition of molar relationships in different skeletal growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121:280-90.

30. Scheffler NR, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes and stability in patients with anterior open bite and long anterior face height treated with temporary anchorage devices and a maxillary intrusion splint. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146:594-602.

31. Buschang PH, Ary SP. Condylar growth and glenoid fossa displacement during childhood and adolescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113:437-42.

32. Buschang PH, Jacob HB. Mandibular rotation revisited: What makes it so important? Semin Orthod. 2014;20:299-315.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top