Comparison of orthodontic tooth movement between adolescents and adults based on implant superimposition

OBJECTIVE: We compared tooth movement under maximum anchorage control with mini-screw implants in growing and non-growing patients. METHODS: In total, 15 adolescent (G1) and 19 adult (G2) patients with prognathic profiles were selected. All patients underwent first premolar extraction treatment with mini-screw implants for maximum anchorage control. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were obtained immediately after implant placement (T1) and at the end of anterior tooth retraction (T2). Tooth movement and root length changes of the maxillary first molar, canine, and incisors were evaluated with three-dimensional models constructed using CBCT data obtained before and after orthodontic retraction through the superimposition of stable implants. RESULTS: Distal movement of the molar crown was observed in G2, but mesial movement was observed in G1. Mesial tipping of the first molar (1.82 ± 6.76°) was seen in G1 and distal tipping (4.44 ± 3.77°) was observed in G2. For the canines, mesial crown tipping (0.33 ± 4.99°) was noted in G1 and distal crown tipping (8.00 ± 5.57°) was observed in G2. In adults, the lingual inclinations of the lateral and central incisors were 11.91 ± 7.01° and 11.47 ± 6.70°, with 0.99 ± 1.22 mm and 1.08 ± 1.20 mm root retraction, respectively. In adolescents, the torque changes were smaller (lateral incisors, 8.25 ± 10.15°; central incisors, 9.82 ± 8.97°) and the root retractions were 0.31 ± 1.81 mm and 0.77 ± 1.59 mm, respectively. Less shortening of the central incisor roots occurred in adolescents than in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth movements, such as anchor molar angular change, the canine tipping pattern, and the amount of incisor retraction, differed between adolescents and adults treated using the same anchorage with mini-screw implants, bracket prescription, and en masse retraction method. Anchorage strength of the first molars, canine movement patterns, and incisor retraction ranges are not determined by the anchorage device alone; growth and alveolar limitations also play roles.