Literature DB >> 27891469

Comparison of Anchorage Pattern under Two Types of Orthodontic Mini- Implant Loading During Retraction in Type A Anchorage Cases.

B Imran Khan1, Gowri Sankar Singaraju2, Prasad Mandava3, G Vivek Reddy4, Venkatesh Nettam1, Venkat Naidu Bhavikati1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The orthodontic mini-screws are the mainstay of direct skeletal anchorage which requires minimal compliance and provides maximal anchorage control. However, the timing of initiation of orthodontic loading of these mini-screws is not clearly established in the available studies. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the reciprocal effects on mini-screw implant with immediate loading in comparison to that of delayed loading during retraction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective clinical study included a sample of 25 orthodontic patients in the age range of 18-25 years. All the cases were of bi-maxillary proclination with Type-A anchorage demands. All the first premolars were indicated for extraction. A split mouth technique for each patient was utilized by loading mini-implant immediately after its placement on one side and the opposite side implant was loaded after a time lag of two weeks post-insertion. Retraction force of 150g was applied for three months on each side. The displacement of the head and tail of the implant, molar anterior tooth retraction was measured on Orthopantomograph (OPG) taken at T1 (initial) and T2 (after three months). A grid method with each 1mm magnified to 500 pixels was superimposed on OPG and the relative displacements were evaluated. Student's unpaired 't' test was used for comparison between left and right side and paired 't' test for the parameters on the same side. The p-value equal to or less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
RESULTS: The mean displacement of head of the implant on the immediate loading is 0.57mm where as the tail exhibited 0.75 mm. The head and tail of the implant on the delayed loading displaced by 0.35mm and 0.38mm respectively, on an average when data was analysed. Significant difference between the two types of loading was noted.
CONCLUSION: Delayed loading is beneficial as compared to immediate loading during extraction space closure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delayed; Grid method; Orthopantomograph; Split mouth; Tooth movement

Year:  2016        PMID: 27891469      PMCID: PMC5121815          DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22726.8678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res        ISSN: 0973-709X


  17 in total

1.  Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of peri-implant bone subjected to immediate loading: an experimental study with Macaca fascicularis.

Authors:  George E Romanos; Chooi Gait Toh; Chong Huat Siar; Dasan Swaminathan
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces?

Authors:  Eric J W Liou; Betty C J Pai; James C Y Lin
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage.

Authors:  Shih-Jung Cheng; I-Yun Tseng; Jang-Jaer Lee; Sang-Heng Kok
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

4.  Assessment of stability of orthodontic mini-implants under orthodontic loading: A computed tomography study.

Authors:  Kamlesh Kumar Garg; Megha Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Dent Res       Date:  2015 May-Jun

5.  Implant vs screw loading protocols in orthodontics.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ohashi; Oscar E Pecho; Milagros Moron; Manuel O Lagravere
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Rigid endosseous implant utilized as anchorage to protract molars and close an atrophic extraction site.

Authors:  W E Roberts; K J Marshall; P G Mozsary
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Rigid implant anchorage to close a mandibular first molar extraction site.

Authors:  W E Roberts; C L Nelson; C J Goodacre
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1994-12

8.  Bone response to orthodontic loading of endosseous implants in the rabbit calvaria: early continuous distalizing forces.

Authors:  Z Majzoub; M Finotti; F Miotti; R Giardino; N N Aldini; G Cordioli
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Endosseous titanium implants as anchors for mesiodistal tooth movement in the beagle dog.

Authors:  S Saito; N Sugimoto; T Morohashi; M Ozeki; H Kurabayashi; H Shimizu; K Yamasaki; A Shiba; S Yamada; Y Shibasaki
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Osseointegration of orthodontic micro-screws after immediate and early loading.

Authors:  Linkun Zhang; Zhihe Zhao; Yu Li; Jiapei Wu; Leilei Zheng; Tian Tang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  A Scoping Review about the Characteristics and Success-Failure Rates of Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Daniel Jaramillo-Bedoya; Gustavo Villegas-Giraldo; Andrés A Agudelo-Suárez; Diana Milena Ramírez-Ossa
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-06

2.  Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hisham Mohammed; Khaled Wafaie; Mumen Z Rizk; Mohammed Almuzian; Rami Sosly; David R Bearn
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.750

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.