Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2010; 42(2): 87-96
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1247424
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart ˙ New York

Wer braucht heute noch Biomechanik?

Who Needs Biomechanics Today?B. Melsen1 , G. Fiorelli2
  • 1Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, School of Dentistry, Universität Aarhus, Dänemark
  • 2Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universität Siena, Arezzo, Italien
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 August 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die „richtige“ Kombination aus modernen Brackets und Drahtmaterialien soll jede Malokklusion in einfacher Weise korrigieren. Der vorliegende Artikel beschreibt anhand mehrerer Beispiele, dass sich diese Ansicht nicht belegen lässt. Vielmehr braucht der Kieferorthopäde auch jetzt noch tiefgreifende biomechanische Kenntnisse um ohne „round tripping“ und Nebenwirkungen gezielt Zahnstellungskorrekturen vornehmen zu können.

Abstract

It has been claimed that the “correct” bracket-wire combination is able to correct every malocclusion in a simple way. This article describes several clinical situations that prove that this is not true. A modern orthodontist still needs a profound knowledge of biomechanic principles in order to treat malocclusions without “round tripping” and side effects.

Schlüsselwörter

Biomechanik - Kraftsystem - kieferorthopädische Geräte - festsitzende Apparaturen - individuell gefertigte Apparaturen

Key words

biomechanics - force system - orthodontic appliances - fixed orthodontic appliances - custom-made appliances

Literatur

  • 1 Davidovitch M, Rebellato J. Two-couple orthodontic appliance systems utility arches: a two-couple intrusion arch.  Semin Orthod. 1995;  1 25-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Isaacson R J, Rebellato J. Two-couple orthodontic appliance systems: torquing arches.  Semin Orthod. 1995;  1 31-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shroff B, Lindauer S J, Burstone C J et al. Segmented approach to simultaneous intrusion and space closure: biomechanics of the three-piece base arch appliance.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  107 136-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Badawi H M, Toogood R W, Carey J P et al. Three-dimensional orthodontic force measurements.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;  136 518-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burstone C J, Koenig H A. Force systems from an ideal arch.  Am J Orthod. 1974;  65 270-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fiorelli G, Melsen B, Modica C. Two-vector mechanics.  Prog Orthod. 2003;  4 62-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Godtfredsen L M, Melsen B. Multipurpose use of a single mini-implant for anchorage in an adult patient.  J Clin Orthod. 2009;  43 193-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Burstone C J. The segmented arch approach to space closure.  Am J Orthod. 1982;  82 361-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burstone C J. The biomechanical rationale of orthodontic therapy. In: Melsen B, ed. Current Controversies in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1991: 131–146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Burstone C R. Deep overbite correction by intrusion.  Am J Orthod. 1977;  72 1-22
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Burstone C J, Pryputniewicz R J. Holographic determination of centers of rotation produced by orthodontic forces.  Am J Orthod. 1980;  77 396-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cattaneo P M. Orthodontic Aspects of Bone Mechanics and Bone Re­mod­elling. Aarhus: University of Aarhus 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Meyer B N, Chen J, Katona T R. Does the center of resistance depend on the direction of tooth movement?.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;  137 354-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fiorelli G, Melsen B. The “3-D occlusogram” software.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;  116 363-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fiorelli G, Melsen B. Biomechanics in Orthodontics 2.0 [CD-ROM]. ­Arezzo: Libra Ortodonzia 2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Melsen B, Fiorelli G, Bergamini A. Uprighting of lower molars.  J Clin Orthod. 1996;  30 640-645
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Burstone C J. Rationale of the segmented arch.  Am J Orthod. 1962;  48 805-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Burstone C J. The mechanics of the segmented arch techniques.  Angle Orthod. 1966;  36 99-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Burstone C J. Applications of bioengineering to clinical orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Swain BF. Current Orthodontic Concepts and Techniques. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.; 1975: 230–258
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Burstone C J, Koenig H A. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction.  Am J Orthod. 1976;  70 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fontenelle A. Lingual orthodontics in adults. In: Melsen B, ed. Current Controversies in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1991: 219–268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Melsen B. Limitations in adult orthodontics. In: Melsen B, ed. Current Controversies in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 1991: 147–180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Marcotte M R. Biomechanics in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Burstone C J, Marcotte M R. The treatment midline. In: Burstone CJ, Marcotte MR. Problem Solving in Orthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2000: 145–178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Weiland F, Bantleon H P, Droschl H. Die kieferorthopädische Tiefbißbehandlung bei Erwachsenen – ein Vergleich der Straight-Wire-Apparatur und der segmentierten Bogentechnik [The orthodontic treatment of deep bite in adults – a comparison of the straight-wire appliance and the segmented arch technic].  Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1992;  53 153-160
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Weiland F J, Bantleon H P, Droschl H. Evaluation of continuous arch and segmented arch leveling techniques in adult patients – a clinical study.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;  110 647-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dalstra M, Melsen B. Force systems developed by six different canti­lever configurations.  Clin Orthod Res. 1999;  2 3-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Prof. Dr. B. Melsen

Head of Department of Orthodontics · School of Dentistry · Aarhus University

Vennelyst Boulevard

DK-8000 Aarhus

Phone: +45 / (0) 89 42 / 40 37

Fax: +45 (0) 86 19 / 27 52

Email: birtemelsen@odont.au.dk

      >