A comparison of the utility arch and segmented arch techniques in the treatment of patients with deep overbite

Correction of deep overbite and achieving a long-term stability are still major concerns for many orthodontists. There are three main ways for solving this problem: Bypass arch technique introduced by Ricketts, Segmented arch technique introduced by Burstone and using TADs. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of Ricketts and Burstone techniques during correction of deep overbites.

In this clinical trial, 18 female patients with Cl I and II occlusion and more than 4 mm of overbite were selected. The subjects were divided into two groups (n=9). The deep overbite in group A was treated with Ricketts technique and Burstone technique was used for correction of overbite in group B. Fifteen jaws were included in each group. Lateral cephalograms before and after intrusion were used to evaluate the results. Data were statistically analyzed with Student’s t-test and SPSS 18 (α=0.05).

There was a statistically significant difference in the means of true intrusion and extrusion between groups A and B (p value = 0.014 and p value = 0.47, respectively). However, overbite reduction was not significantly different between the two groups (p value = 0.704). In addition, the differences in mean false intrusion (p value = 0.02), changes in the axial inclination of posterior teeth (p value = 0.047) and the angle between axial inclination of upper and lower anterior teeth (p value = 0.002) were statistically significant between the two groups.

Under the limitation of the present study, the results confirmed the superiority of Burstone technique in intruding incisors with less undesirable lateral movements.