S M Londhe1, P Kumar2, R Mitra3, A Kotwal4. 1. Consultant (Orthodontics), CMDC (SC), Pune-40. 2. Officer Commanding, MDC Kirkee. 3. Associate Professor (Dept of Dental Surgery), AFMC, Pune-40. 4. Assoc Prof (Dept of Community Medicine), AFMC, Pune-40.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of inclusion of second molar in treatment at the outset to reinforce anchorage. METHODS: A comparative study comprising of 30 maximum anchorage cases to quantify anchorage loss in two situations was undertaken. Group I consisted of cases in which only first molars were banded and Group II consisted of cases where both first and second molars were banded. A total of seven landmarks were marked and six measurements were recorded on to the pre-treatment and post-treatment lateral cephalogram. RESULT: The difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment values of all the variables were statistically significant (p<0.05) except maxillary central incisor vertical movement (U1 VER), implying a significant post-treatment change. Thus in both the treatment approaches U6 and U1 showed a considerable amount of movement in horizontal and vertical direction and there was rotation which brought about change in angular values. CONCLUSION: The study has successfully quantified the anchorage loss and brought out the advantages of including second molar in treatment at the outset. Not only the anchorage loss is minimized but inclusion of second molar also helps to maximize incisor retraction and helps control angular movement of molar and incisor. Extra time required for second molar banding is well spent, as the benefits are overwhelming.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of inclusion of second molar in treatment at the outset to reinforce anchorage. METHODS: A comparative study comprising of 30 maximum anchorage cases to quantify anchorage loss in two situations was undertaken. Group I consisted of cases in which only first molars were banded and Group II consisted of cases where both first and second molars were banded. A total of seven landmarks were marked and six measurements were recorded on to the pre-treatment and post-treatment lateral cephalogram. RESULT: The difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment values of all the variables were statistically significant (p<0.05) except maxillary central incisor vertical movement (U1 VER), implying a significant post-treatment change. Thus in both the treatment approaches U6 and U1 showed a considerable amount of movement in horizontal and vertical direction and there was rotation which brought about change in angular values. CONCLUSION: The study has successfully quantified the anchorage loss and brought out the advantages of including second molar in treatment at the outset. Not only the anchorage loss is minimized but inclusion of second molar also helps to maximize incisor retraction and helps control angular movement of molar and incisor. Extra time required for second molar banding is well spent, as the benefits are overwhelming.