Cargando…
A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth
BACKGROUND: Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1(st) premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study with the aim of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8132853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017772 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_841_20 |
_version_ | 1783694974604279808 |
---|---|
author | Malhotra, Abhita Mangla, Rajat Dua, Vinay S. Kannan, Sridhar Arora, Nitin Singh, Ashish Kumar |
author_facet | Malhotra, Abhita Mangla, Rajat Dua, Vinay S. Kannan, Sridhar Arora, Nitin Singh, Ashish Kumar |
author_sort | Malhotra, Abhita |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1(st) premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study with the aim of retracting the proclined maxillary anterior teeth and to check for efficient retraction, type of tooth movement during retraction, and amount of anchorage loss. METHODS: Patients with proclined anterior teeth where therapeutic extraction of first premolars is required were included in the study, where anchorage was taken with mini-implants in one group, and in the second group, conventional anchorage method of 1(st) and 2(nd) molar banding with TPA was chosen. Each group consisted of 8 subjects. Lateral cephalogram was taken both preretraction and 4 months after starting retraction to compare anchor loss, rate of retraction, and type of tooth movement of retracted anteriors, in both groups. RESULTS: The retraction in the implant group was more than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Anchorage loss was seen to be greater in conventional group than in the implant group and was also significant statistically. The type of tooth movement of the anterior teeth on retraction was also compared, with the implant group showing predominantly controlled tipping and the conventional group showing uncontrolled tipping movement. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8132853 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81328532021-05-19 A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth Malhotra, Abhita Mangla, Rajat Dua, Vinay S. Kannan, Sridhar Arora, Nitin Singh, Ashish Kumar J Family Med Prim Care Original Article BACKGROUND: Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1(st) premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study with the aim of retracting the proclined maxillary anterior teeth and to check for efficient retraction, type of tooth movement during retraction, and amount of anchorage loss. METHODS: Patients with proclined anterior teeth where therapeutic extraction of first premolars is required were included in the study, where anchorage was taken with mini-implants in one group, and in the second group, conventional anchorage method of 1(st) and 2(nd) molar banding with TPA was chosen. Each group consisted of 8 subjects. Lateral cephalogram was taken both preretraction and 4 months after starting retraction to compare anchor loss, rate of retraction, and type of tooth movement of retracted anteriors, in both groups. RESULTS: The retraction in the implant group was more than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Anchorage loss was seen to be greater in conventional group than in the implant group and was also significant statistically. The type of tooth movement of the anterior teeth on retraction was also compared, with the implant group showing predominantly controlled tipping and the conventional group showing uncontrolled tipping movement. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-01 2021-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8132853/ /pubmed/34017772 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_841_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care https://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 Malhotra, Abhita Mangla, Rajat Dua, Vinay S. Kannan, Sridhar Arora, Nitin Singh, Ashish Kumar A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title | A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title_full | A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title_fullStr | A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title_full_unstemmed | A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title_short | A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
title_sort | clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8132853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017772 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_841_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malhotraabhita aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT manglarajat aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT duavinays aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT kannansridhar aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT aroranitin aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT singhashishkumar aclinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT malhotraabhita clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT manglarajat clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT duavinays clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT kannansridhar clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT aroranitin clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth AT singhashishkumar clinicalcomparativestudyusinganchoragefromminiimplantsandconventionalanchoragemethodstoretractanteriorteeth |