Cargando…

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

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 a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davis, D, Krishnaraj, R, Duraisamy, Sangeetha, Ravi, K, Dilip, S, Charles, Anila, Sushil, NC
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166823
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17
_version_ 1783349478439256064
author Davis, D
Krishnaraj, R
Duraisamy, Sangeetha
Ravi, K
Dilip, S
Charles, Anila
Sushil, NC
author_facet Davis, D
Krishnaraj, R
Duraisamy, Sangeetha
Ravi, K
Dilip, S
Charles, Anila
Sushil, NC
author_sort Davis, D
collection PubMed
description 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° on implant side and 2.45° on molar side of the maxilla and was 0.19° on implant side and 2.69° on molar side of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Implant anchorage is an efficient alternative to molar anchorage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6104377
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61043772018-08-30 Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study Davis, D Krishnaraj, R Duraisamy, Sangeetha Ravi, K Dilip, S Charles, Anila Sushil, NC Contemp Clin Dent Original Article 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° on implant side and 2.45° on molar side of the maxilla and was 0.19° on implant side and 2.69° on molar side of the mandible. CONCLUSIONS: Implant anchorage is an efficient alternative to molar anchorage. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6104377/ /pubmed/30166823 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Davis, D
Krishnaraj, R
Duraisamy, Sangeetha
Ravi, K
Dilip, S
Charles, Anila
Sushil, NC
Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title_full Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title_short Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study
title_sort comparison of rate of canine retraction and anchorage potential between mini-implant and conventional molar anchorage: an in vivo study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166823
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17
work_keys_str_mv AT davisd comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT krishnarajr comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT duraisamysangeetha comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT ravik comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT dilips comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT charlesanila comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy
AT sushilnc comparisonofrateofcanineretractionandanchoragepotentialbetweenminiimplantandconventionalmolaranchorageaninvivostudy