Topics of the day:

1. Tip-Edge - Edgewise
2. Re: Miniscrew implants
3. Re: Begg bracket; TipEdge
4. Orthodontic Jaw Wiring
5. Miniscrew Implants
6. ESCO - The Electronic Study Club for Orthodontics

 


Subject: Tip-Edge - Edgewise
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:31:50 -0500
From: "Speck, Morton " <morton_speck@hms.harvard.edu>
To: esco@listserv.uic.edu

Dear Group -

Paul Thomas' point is well-taken regarding the use of the Begg/Tip-Edge bracket in the type of case he illustrates, i.e., recreating space for the missing lateral incisor. Unquestionably, the Tip-Edge bracket offers many advantages over its ribbon arch predecessor. For those who are interested, Richard Parkhouse's new text, Tip-Edge Orthodontics (Mosby), graphically and beautifully illustrates the extreme versatility and simplicity of this appliance. His book is reviewed in the November issue of AJO/DO .

I believe that knowledge of Tip-Edge can greatly simplify many of your treatment procedures. I maintain that the use of Angle's edgewise bracket in extraction cases particularly has placed an unnecessary burden on you and your patients. Nowhere in Angle's writing is there any discussion of moving teeth long distances mesio-distally. However, with extraction treatment, that is precisely what you are required to do. The increased friction produced by this movement has required a myriad of anchorage-bolstering devices, which you are well aware of. The fact that the Tip-Edge appliance can simultaneously retract the six anterior teeth and open the bite with less force than it takes just to overcome edgewise bracket friction in cuspid retraction makes it worthy of consideration. Parkhouse's text, in addition to being an excellent instruction manual, clearly illustrates the many advantages of the technique.

For the record, I have no financial interest in this text or in TP Orthodontics. As an inveterate teacher, my chief interest lies in presenting information. I welcome any feed-back.

Mort Speck

 


From: "Paul M Thomas" <p.thomas@earthlink.net>
To: "'The Electronic Study Club for Orthodontics'" <ESCO@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU>
Subject: RE: Miniscrew implants
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:30:11 -0000

The burgeoning interest in temporary anchorage devices has been interesting to watch. It's certainly not a new concept. LB Higley, first chairman of UNC orthodontic department co-authored a paper in 1945 describing the use of an orthopedic bone screw placed in the ramus for anchorage. The growth of interest and available devices is mirroring osseointegrated implant evolution except on a much smaller scale. There are multiple companies, all using variations of a similar design regardless of whether mini-plates or modified screws. (with the exception of the mid-palatal devices) Having worked on developing TADs (temporary anchorage devices) since 1997 (first with Walter Lorenz Surgical and subsequently with KLS Martin)it's been interesting to see the number of companies rushing a product to the marketplace. I guess we were a little foolish and did the animal research first which delayed things a bit. Over the last couple of years there have been multiple clones, first from the Far East and more recently an Italian clone of a device from the Far East. Interesting!!

Our original design was simply a modification of an existing device, the maxillomandibular fixation screw. These were double headed screws which were intended to be used for fixation rather than Erich arch bars. (see attached images of examples from Lorenz and Synthes) We started with this design since the CAD/CAM work had already been done. It was simply a matter of modifying an existing design in order to produce the prototypes. There certainly may be better designs, but it's interesting to note the number of clones of that first design.

I agree with E Mizrahi regarding the ease of use and flexibility of application. An anchorage screw is my first choice if applicable. The modified plates are a fall-back when there is inadequate bone to stabilise the anchorage screw. The screws to secure the plates are typically 3-4 mm and can be placed monocortically. Of course an incision and stitches are necessary (times two), but it's still a minor procedure with minimal morbidity. The midpalatal devices seem to hold the least promise since they are more expensive, involve (in most cases) more paraphrenalia, integration time (with the exception of screws placed in the palate) require two surgeries and are limited in application.

I agree that use of TADs will continue to increase. There will probably be over-application and then some settlement into a reasonable amount of use. Companies will fall by the way-side, as in the case of OI implants. It will be interesting to observe.

Paul M Thomas
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Orthodontics
Eastman Dental Institute
256 Gray's Inn Road
London WCX1 8LD

(See attached pictures)

 


From: Typodont@aol.com
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:20:25 EST
Subject: Re: Begg bracket; TipEdge
To: ESCO@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU

Dear Charlie,


My "tongue in cheek" response to the Begg bracket inquiry provoked the anticipated spirited response from colleagues worldwide.  That's precisely the intention because it's always potentially interesting to see discussions on technique in orthodontics.  However, it should be obvious to everyone that the specific "gadget" or "gizmo" that we orthodontists utilize to effect tooth movement is secondary to the underlying principles of diagnosis, treatment planning, and overall orthodontic case management.  It is my belief that many cases that result in substandard treatment outcomes probably are "lost" before the first orthodontic attachment (Begg, Edgewise, or otherwise) is actually placed.  Poor records, lack of attention or ignorance to the value of these records, inadequate time spent diagnosing, treatment planning, and consulting with parents of young patients or adult patients themselves, and failure to make important and critical early or midcourse treatment strategy modifications (the need for extractions, orthognathic surgery, periodontal procedures, etc.), and inadequate attention to the specific retention requirements of individual patients are far more culpable factors in contributing to unfavorable outcomes in orthodontics rather than the specific mechanical technique utilized by the clinician.

Obsessing about specific orthodontic "mousetraps" in the overall scheme of things is like watching "Nero fiddle, while Rome burns."   Quite frankly, the modern orthodontic  appliances (sometimes referred to as "smart arch wires and brackets") are frequently "smarter" than the people using them. 

Charlie, you asked me about TipEdge.  The TipEdge appliance was a welcome and positive evolutionary step in bringing Begg (and the 256 bracket) into more of a mainstream "EdgeWise" environment.  This included the use of rectangular wire and offered the possibility of greater control and ability to more precisely finish cases. 

Finally, over the years, I have had the opportunity (like many of us) to view other clinician's finished results.  Spending some time viewing the ABO cases at constituent or annual AAO meetings (and CDABO presentations) will remind us that unless we were told which specific fixed appliances were utilized (.018, .022, Bi-dimensional, etc.), none of us would know. 

If we all more profoundly understood the biology of what we are treating, and the biologic mechanisms (not gizmology) that are responsible for our successful (and unsuccessful) outcomes, we, and certainly our patients, would be better off.  Until that day arrives, we are all, more or less, in the same boat, regardless of what appliance we seem to so passionately defend. 

Elliott Moskowitz



From: "Roy King" <rkking1952@bellsouth.net>
To: esco@listserv.uic.edu
Subject: Orthodontic Jaw Wiring
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:30:52 -0600

---To ESCO,

Recently I read a article about the pros and cons of OJW for weight control.  One of the panelist said not to perform OJW because it is outside the scope of dentistry.  I have been involved with oral appliances for sleep apnea and I work with the physicians.  If you work with the physicians with OJW, how is it different than the oral appliances with sleep apnea?

Roy King

 


Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:15:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Angshuman Bhattacharya" <dr_angshuman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Miniscrew Implants
To: esco@listserv.uic.edu

Hello

Can anyone tell me which is the best commercially available Miniscrew Implant System?

Dr. Angshuman

 


 

Dear Colleague:

The Electronic Study Club for Orthodontics (ESCO) is a free forum for exchange of information and opinions among orthodontists, and for distribution of professional information, sponsored by the Department of Orthodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago .  Information distributed on this list-server is NOT edited or refereed, and it represents only the opinions of the writers of the individual messages. Such writers bear the sole responsibility for the content of messages they author.  Authors are required to verify information regarding other parties included in their messages.  

* What information can you get on ESCO?

* How to subscribe to ESCO?

* How to change your address?

* How to post messages on ESCO?

* How to get copies of old digests of ESCO?

For answers to these questions and more, please check our web site: http://www.uic.edu/depts/dort/esco.html

To view and search old digests, please view our web site: http://listserv.uic.edu/archives/esco.html

Enjoy your reading!