Literature DB >> 23787192

Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.

Salma Al-Sibaie1, Mohammad Y Hajeer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trial has tried to compare treatment outcomes between the sliding en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth supported by mini-implants and the two-step sliding retraction technique employing conventional anchorage devices.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes following anterior teeth retraction. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Parallel-groups randomized controlled trial on patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated at the University of Al-Baath Dental School in Hamah, Syria between July 2011 and May 2013. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty-three patients with an upper dentoalveolar protrusion were evaluated and 80 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Randomization was performed using computer-generated tables; allocation was concealed using sequentially numbered opaque and sealed envelopes. Fifty-six participants were analysed (mean age 22.34 ± 4.56 years). They were randomly distributed into two groups with 28 patients in each group (1:1 allocation ratio). INTERVENTION: Following first premolar extraction, space closure was accomplished using either the en-masse technique with mini-implants or the two-step technique with transpalatal arches (TPAs). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The antero-posterior displacements of upper incisal edges and upper first molars were measured on lateral cephalograms at three assessment times. Assessor blinding was employed.
RESULTS: A bodily retraction (-4.42 mm; P < 0.001) with a slight intrusion (-1.53 mm; P < 0.001) of the upper anterior teeth was achieved in the mini-implants group, whereas upper anterior teeth retraction was achieved by controlled palatal tipping in the TPA group.
CONCLUSIONS: When retracting anterior teeth in patients with moderate to severe protrusion, the en-masse retraction based on mini-implants anchorage gave superior results compared to the two-step retraction based on conventional anchorage in terms of speed, dental changes, anchorage loss, and aesthetic outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23787192     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046

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


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of anterior retraction and anchorage control between en masse retraction and two-step retraction: A randomized prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Patricia Pigato Schneider; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; André da Costa Monini; Ary Dos Santos Pinto; Ki Beom Kim
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Comparison of two treatment protocols for intrusion and retraction of maxillary anterior teeth using mini-implants : A prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  A Sumathi Felicita; Shabeena Abdul Khader
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  In Vivo Comparison of the Efficiency of En-Masse Retraction Using Temporary Anchorage Devices With and Without Orthodontic Appliances on the Posterior Teeth.

Authors:  Sanjam Oswal; Sonali V Deshmukh; Sanket S Agarkar; Sachin Durkar; Chaitra Mastud; Jayesh S Rahalkar
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2022-06

4.  Effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the rate of en masse orthodontic tooth retraction : A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Prashant Kumar; Abdulqadir H Rampurawala; Amol S Patil
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 2.341

Review 5.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Surgical Interventions Versus Non-surgical Ones When Used in Conjunction With Fixed Appliances to Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Doa'a Tahseen Alfailany; Mohammad Y Hajeer; Ahmad S Burhan; Luai Mahaini; Khaldoun Darwich; Ossama Aljabban
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-27

6.  Class II Correction with Microimplant Supported Molar Distalization: A Report of Two Cases.

Authors:  Zouhair Skaf; Fidèle Nabbout
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2022-07-11

Review 7.  The Effectiveness of Periodontally Accelerated Osteogenic Orthodontics (PAOO) in Accelerating Tooth Movement and Supporting Alveolar Bone Thickness During Orthodontic Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Hallaj I Alsino; Mohammad Y Hajeer; Ahmad S Burhan; Issam Alkhouri; Khaldoun Darwich
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-05-14

Review 8.  Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Klaus Bsl Batista; Badri Thiruvenkatachari; Jayne E Harrison; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-03-13

9.  Which anchorage device is the best during retraction of anterior teeth? An overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Yassir A Yassir; Sarah A Nabbat; Grant T McIntyre; David R Bearn
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 1.361

Review 10.  Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mumen Z Rizk; Hisham Mohammed; Omar Ismael; David R Bearn
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.