Literature DB >> 21059875

Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion.

Isao Koyama1, Shoichiro Iino, Yuka Abe, Teruko Takano-Yamamoto, Shouichi Miyawaki.   

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to determine differences between the outcomes of treatment using implant anchorage compared with straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in bimaxillary protrusion patients. The lateral cephalograms of 28 adult orthodontic patients (3 males and 25 females; age, 24.9 ± 5.0 years) who had an Angle Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion were selected. Group 1 (14 patients; 1 male and 13 females; age, 25.0 ± 5.1 years) received sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and group 2 (14 patients; 2 males and 12 females; age, 24.8 ± 5.1 years) a straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics. Lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained before and after treatment were traced, 13 landmarks identified, and differences in the skeletal and dental changes compared between the groups. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to determine changes within the treatment groups and a Mann-Whitney U-test to evaluate significant differences. More anchorage loss occurred at the maxillary posterior teeth in group 2 (2.1 mm) than in group 1 (0.1 mm). Closing rotation of the mandible occurred in group 1, while opening rotation of the mandible was observed in group 2. These results suggest that sliding mechanics with implant anchorage may provide absolute anchorage and could control mandibular rotation more than the conventional technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21059875     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq047

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


  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of canine retraction following periodontal distraction using NiTi coil spring and implants - A clinical study.

Authors:  Rohit Khanna; Tripti Tikku; Kiran Sachan; R P Maurya; Geeta Verma; Vivek Ojha
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2014-11-29

Review 2.  Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction : A systematic review.

Authors:  Kumeran Mohan; Saritha Sivarajan; May Nak Lau; Siti Adibah Othman; Mona M Salah Fayed
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.341

3.  [Efficacy of vertical control by using mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients].

Authors:  W Liang; Y Tang; W B Huang; B Han; J X Lin
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-04-18

4.  Skeletal Class III and open bite treated with bilateral sagittal split osteotomy and molar intrusion using titanium screws.

Authors:  Rena Togawa; Shoichiro Iino; Shouichi Miyawaki
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 5.  Methods of Anterior Torque Control during Retraction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Anna Ewa Kuc; Jacek Kotuła; Marek Nahajowski; Maciej Warnecki; Joanna Lis; Ellie Amm; Beata Kawala; Michał Sarul
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-01

6.  SURGICAL AND ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT METHODS IN PATIENTS WITH BIMAXILLARY PROTRUSION - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

Authors:  O K Ogundipe; O D Otuyemi
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

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

Authors:  M Kaladhar Naik; Garadappagari Dharmadeep; Yellampalli Muralidhar Reddy; Sreekanth Cherukuri; Kranthi Praveen Raj; Vishnuvardhan Reddy
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2020-02-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.