Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.

Objective: Miniscrews are commonly utilized as temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction. This study aimed to investigate the effects and potential side effects of two conventional miniscrew configurations on the maxillary incisors. Methods: Eighty-two adult patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion who had undergone bilateral first premolar extraction were retrospectively divided into three groups: non-TAD, two posterior miniscrews only (P-TADs), and two anterior and two posterior miniscrews combined (AP-TADs). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to evaluate the maxillary central incisors (U1). Results: The APTADs group had significantly greater U1 intrusion (1.99 ± 2.37 mm, n = 50) and less retroclination (1.70° ± 8.80°) compared to the P-TADs (–0.07 ± 1.65 mm and 9.45° ± 10.68°, n = 60) and non-TAD group (0.30 ± 1.61 mm and 1.91° ± 9.39°, n = 54).However, the AP-TADs group suffered from significantly greater apical root resorption (ARR) of U1 (2.69 ± 1.38 mm) than the P-TADs (1.63 ± 1.46 mm) and non-TAD group (0.89 ± 0.97 mm). Notably, the incidence of grade IV ARR was 16.6% in the AP-TADs group, significantly higher than the rates observed in the P-TADs (6.7%) and non-TAD (1.9%) groups. Multiple regression analysis revealed that after excluding tooth movement factors, the AP-TADs configuration resulted in an additional 0.5 mm of ARR compared with the P-TADs group. Conclusions In cases of maxillary protrusion and premolar extraction, the use of combined anterior and posterior miniscrews enhances incisor intrusion and minimizes torque loss of the maxillary incisors. However, this approach results in more severe ARR, likely due to the increased apical movement and composite force exerted.