X hits on this document





8 / 8

The patient indicated that wearing extraoral appliances would be difficult, and she chose not to have brackets in the lower arch, ruling out anchorage with Class II elastics. The upper right third molar was extracted, and a Spider Screw was inserted in the buccal plate between the upper left second premolar and second molar (Fig. 16). Brackets were bonded to the maxillary teeth. An .016" .022" stainless steel archwire was inserted, with two 150g Sentalloy open-coil springs attached between the upper second pre- molars and second molars to upright the second molars and reopen the first molar spaces.

An .012" stainless steel ligature wire was placed from the Spider Screw to the upper left canine to dissipate the reaction force from the coil spring and prevent mesial movement of the premolars and canine (Fig. 17). On the right side, the reaction force moved the premolars and ca- nines into a Class I relationship, closing the ante- rior spaces and correcting the midline deviation.

Interproximal stripping was performed in the mandibular arch, and a spring aligner was used to correct the mild crowding. Total treat- ment time was 10 months (Fig. 18).


Spider Screws can be used to support dif- ferent types of orthodontic mechanics, especially in cases with incomplete arches or limited coop- eration, as shown here. Their ease of application and small size also permit their use in patients with intact dentitions when anchorage recovery is necessary during treatment.


Maino, Bednar, Pagin, and Mura


  • 1.

    Weinstein, S.; Haak, D.C.; Morris, L.Y.; Snyder, B.B.; and Attaway, H.E.: One equilibrium theory of tooth position, Angle Orthod. 33:1-26, 1963.

  • 2.

    Pilon, J.J.G.M.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M.; and Maltha, J.C.: Magnitude of orthodontic forces and rate of bodily tooth move- ment: An experimental study, Am. J. Orthod. 110:16-23, 1996.

  • 3.

    Umemori, M.; Sugawara, J.; Mitani, H.; Nagasaka, H.; and Kawamura, H.: Skeletal anchorage system for open-bite cor- rection, Am. J. Orthod. 115:166-174, 1999.

  • 4.

    Roberts, W.E.; Nelson, C.L.; and Goodacre, C.J.: Rigid implant anchorage to close a mandibular first molar extraction site, J. Clin. Orthod. 28:693-704, 1994.

  • 5.

    Kanomi, R.: Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage, J. Clin. Orthod. 31:763-767, 1997.

  • 6.

    Melsen, B. and Verna, C.: A rational approach to orthodontic anchorage, Progress Orthod. 1:11-22, 2000.

  • 7.

    Higuchi, K.W. and Slack, J.M.: The use of titanium fixtures for intraoral anchorage to facilitate orthodontic tooth movement, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 6:338-344, 1991.

  • 8.

    Costa, A.; Dalstra, M.; and Melsen, B.: L’Aarhus anchorage system, Ort. It. 9:487-496, 2000.

  • 9.

    Ohmae, M.; Saito, S.; Morohashi, T.; Seki, K.; Qu, H.; Kano- mi, R.; Yamasaki, K.; Okano, T.; Yamada, S.; and Shibasaki,

    • Y.

      : A clinical and histological evaluation of titanium mini- implants as anchors for orthodontic intrusion in the beagle dog, Am. J. Orthod. 119:489-497, 2001.

  • 10.

    Boyd, R.L.; Leggott, P.J.; Quinn, R.S.; Eakle, W.S.; and Cham- bers, D.: Periodontal implications of orthodontic treatment in adults with reduced or normal periodontal tissue vs. those of adolescents, Am. J. Orthod. 96:191-198, 1989.


Document info
Document views27
Page views27
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 04:17:15 UTC 2017