Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study

被引:11
|
作者
Davis, D. [1 ]
Krishnaraj, R. [1 ]
Duraisamy, Sangeetha [1 ]
Ravi, K. [1 ]
Dilip, S. [1 ]
Charles, Anila [1 ]
Sushil, N. C. [1 ]
机构
[1] SRM Dent Coll, Dept Orthodontia, Madras 600089, Tamil Nadu, India
关键词
Anchorage; canine retraction; mini-implant;
D O I
10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the rate of canine retraction, the anchorage loss, and the change in the inclination of the first molars between molar and mini-implant anchorage. Objective: (1) To compare the rate of canine retraction between conventional molar anchorage and mini-implant anchorage in the maxilla and mandible. (2) To compare the amount of anchor loss between mini-implant-anchored and molar-anchored sides during canine retraction in the maxilla and mandible. Materials and Methods: Ten patients were included in the study. The implants were loaded immediately by applying a force of 100 g. Measurements were made in the pre-retraction and post-retraction lateral cephalograms. A line drawn vertically from the sella-nasion plane through the distal pterygomaxillary point was used as a reference line. Results: The mean rates of canine retraction were 0.95 and 0.82 mm/month in maxilla on the implant and molar sides, respectively, and were 0.81 and 0.76 mm/month in mandible on the implant and molar sides, respectively. The mean anchorage loss was 0.1 mm on the implant side and 1.3 mm on the molar side of the maxilla and 0.06 mm on the implant side and 1.3 mm on the molar side of the mandible. The mean change in molar inclination was 0.3 degrees on implant side and 2.45 degrees on molar side of the maxilla and was 0.19 degrees on implant side and 2.69 degrees on molar side of the mandible. Conclusions: Implant anchorage is an efficient alternative to molar anchorage.
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 342
页数:6
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [31] A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial
    André da Costa Monini
    Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior
    Alexandre Protásio Vianna
    Renato Parsekian Martins
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2017, 21 : 1047 - 1053
  • [32] Feasibility of mini-implant insertion between mesial and distal buccal roots of a maxillary first molar: A cone-beam computed tomography imaging study
    Liu, Ji-Nan
    He, Yin-Xue
    Jia, Xue-Ting
    Huang, Rui
    Zeng, Na
    Fan, Xiao-Chuan
    Huang, Xiao-Feng
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2023, 164 (05) : 665 - 673
  • [33] Evaluation of Angular Changes of Canine in En Masse Retraction of Maxillary Anterior Teeth Using Power Arm and Titanium Mini-Implant - A Split Mouth Randomised Control Study
    Joshi, Harshil Naresh
    Goje, Santosh Kumar
    Kulkarni, Narayan
    Shah, Romil
    Chellani, Samarth
    Soni, Jay
    Bhardwaj, M. Devyani
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2021, 10 (08): : 522 - 526
  • [34] Comparison of canine retraction rate between miniscrew assisted micro-osteoperforation and conventional technique - a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Idrees, Wafa
    Kanwal, Leelan
    Maaz, Muhammad
    Fida, Mubassar
    Sukhia, Rashna Hoshang
    CLINICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE ORTHODONTICS, 2024, 83 (01): : 1 - 6
  • [35] Changes in biting forces with implant-supported overdenture in the lower jaw: A comparison between conventional and mini implants in a pilot study
    Hasan, I.
    Madarlis, C.
    Keilig, L.
    Dirk, C.
    Weber, A.
    Bourauel, C.
    Heinemann, F.
    ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER, 2016, 208 : 116 - 122