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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Malhotra, Abhita, Mangla, Rajat, Dua, Vinay S., Kannan, Sridhar, Arora, Nitin, Singh, Ashish Kumar
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