JBR Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Dental Science
Open Access

Abstract

Introduction & Aim: There are many intrusion mechanics such as Ricketts utility arch, K-SIR, RCS, J-headgear, implant, Connecticut intrusion arch, Burstone arch, three piece arch, vertical loops and many more. Since it is difficult to choose which method is better, an attempt is made through the present study to compare the rate of intrusion, root resorption and effect on maxillary central incisors achieved by three different commonly used intrusion techniques: Ricketts utility arch, Kalra's simultaneous intrusion and retraction arch and arch with reverse curve of Spee. Methods: The study was conducted over 30 patients aged between 14 and 25 years with deep bite requiring at least 2-4 mm intrusion of maxillary incisors. These patients were equally divided into three groups based on intrusion technique used, Rickets utility arch (Group I), K-SIR arch (Group II) and RCS arch (Group III). For each patient, amount of intrusion and root resorption occurring during intrusion was measured. Seven angular and six linear cephalometric measurements were made to evaluate skeletal and dental changes before and after incisor intrusion. Results: The mean true incisor intrusion achieved with utility arch was 1.6 mm, with K-SIR; 1.25 mm and with RCS; 0.70 mm, respectively. The rate of intrusion of utility arch was 0.44 mm/month, K-SIR-0.33 mm/month, RCS-0.35 mm/month, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.451). Utility arch had significantly higher mean root resorption of 1.56 mm as compared to K-SIR of 1.08 mm and RCS of 0.96 mm. Conclusion: Both the intrusion rate and root resorption is more in utility arch compared with the KSIR arch, though the rate of intrusion is almost same; the root resorption is much less.

Biography

Email: dr.prachigoel@gmail.com