Literature DB >> 20457580

Effects of the zygoma anchorage system on canine retraction.

Alev Cetinsahin1, Müfide Dinçer, Ayça Arman-Ozçirpici, Sina Uçkan.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the Gjessing (PG) retraction spring used with and without the zygoma anchorage system (ZAS) on canine retraction. Thirty patients, with an Angle Class I or Class II malocclusion, whose upper first premolars were scheduled for extraction, were divided into two equal groups. Group 1 comprised maximum anchorage cases (nine females and six males with a mean age of 16 years 8 months) in which the ZAS was used to improve posterior anchorage and the PG retraction springs for canine retraction. Moderate anchorage cases (10 females and 5 males with a mean age of 15 years 5 month) were included in group 2 and canine retraction was achieved using only PG retraction springs. Study models and lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained at the initial and final stages of canine retraction were used for comparison of the groups to determine the effects of zygoma anchorage on canine retraction. All measurements were evaluated statistically using a Student's t-test, 2 × 2 repeated measures analysis of variance, Bonferroni-adjusted t-test, and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests according to the normality of the distribution of the variables. Mesial crown movement of the molars was 0.63 mm (P < 0.05) in group 1 and 1.50 mm (P < 0.001) in group 2. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between the groups. No significant difference was observed between the groups for the rate of canine retraction or sagittal and vertical movement of the canines. The ZAS is a reliable and successful anchorage reinforcement method for canine retraction in extraction cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20457580     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjp167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  3 in total

1.  Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison.

Authors:  Andre da C Monini; Luiz G Gandini; Alexandre P Vianna; Renato P Martins; Helder B Jacob
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Effect of light-emitting photobiomodulation therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement : A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Yaman Güray; A Sema Yüksel
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 2.341

3.  Are there differences on tooth movement between different sectional canine retractors?

Authors:  B Işik Aslan; B Baloştuncer; M Dinçer
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 1.938

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.