Cargando…

Comparison of the Anchorage Value of the First Molars Supported with Implant and First Molars Supported with Second Molar during En Masse Retraction

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of mini-implants as adjuncts for intraoral anchorage units for en masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 15 patients (10...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Naik, M. Kaladhar, Dharmadeep, Garadappagari, Muralidhar Reddy, Yellampalli, Cherukuri, Sreekanth, Praveen Raj, Kranthi, Reddy, Vishnuvardhan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32181216
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_262_19
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of mini-implants as adjuncts for intraoral anchorage units for en masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of 15 patients (10 females and 5 males). The samples were compared for anchorage loss with the implant-supported molar and conventional molar contralaterally in both the maxilla and mandible after six months of retraction period. The mini-implants used were 1.5 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length and were inserted in the first and third quadrant between the roots of second premolar and first molar under local anesthesia at an angle of 45°. For en masse retraction, active tiebacks with ligating (100g) were used bilaterally extending from molar hooks to J-hook on a 0.019” × 0.025” stainless steel arch wire. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after retraction for assessing the loss of anchorage in maxillary and mandibular first molars. RESULTS: Anchorage loss of 1.46 mm in the maxilla and 1.36 mm in mandible was found with conventional molar anchorage, whereas no statistically significant anchorage loss was found in the implant-supported molar side. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported molar side showed better anchorage compared with the conventional molar side. Hence, implant-supported molar can be used as an absolute anchorage unit in the en masse retraction of anterior teeth.