Marco Migliorati1, Lucia Cevidanes2, Giordana Sinfonico3, Sara Drago4, Domenico Dalessandri5, Gaetano Isola6, Armando Silvestrini Biavati4. 1. Orthodontics Department, School of Dentistry University of Genova largo Rosanna Benzi, 10 16132, Genoa, Italy. marco.migliorati@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, USA. 3. Private Practice, Genoa, Italy. 4. Orthodontics Department, School of Dentistry University of Genova largo Rosanna Benzi, 10 16132, Genoa, Italy. 5. Department Of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 6. Department of General Surgery and Surgical-Medical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare two different anchorage systems efficiency to disinclude impacted maxillary canines using as evaluation tool superimposed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCTs). METHODS: The study has been conducted with two parallel groups with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group test received treatment using as anchorage a miniscrew, control group was treated using an anchorage unit a trans palatal arch (TPA). Both groups received a calibrated traction force of 50 g. CBCT before treatment and 3 months after traction were superimposed and canine tip and root movement were evaluated in mm/month ratio. RESULTS: No differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan. Twenty-two patients (12 female, 10 male, mean age:13.4 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment for impacted maxillary canines were recruited for this study. No differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan. CONCLUSIONS: The present pilot study provided no evidence that indirect anchorage on miniscrews could make canine disimpaction faster than anchorage on a TPA. An apex root movement of 0.4-0.8 mm per month was found, while average canine tip movement ranged between 1.08 mm and 1.96 mm per month. No miniscrews failures were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study reports the preliminary results of the randomized clinical trial registered at www.register.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01717417 ).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare two different anchorage systems efficiency to disinclude impacted maxillary canines using as evaluation tool superimposed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCTs). METHODS: The study has been conducted with two parallel groups with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group test received treatment using as anchorage a miniscrew, control group was treated using an anchorage unit a trans palatal arch (TPA). Both groups received a calibrated traction force of 50 g. CBCT before treatment and 3 months after traction were superimposed and caninetip and root movement were evaluated in mm/month ratio. RESULTS: No differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan. Twenty-two patients (12 female, 10 male, mean age:13.4 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment for impacted maxillary canines were recruited for this study. No differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan. CONCLUSIONS: The present pilot study provided no evidence that indirect anchorage on miniscrews could make canine disimpaction faster than anchorage on a TPA. An apex root movement of 0.4-0.8 mm per month was found, while average caninetip movement ranged between 1.08 mm and 1.96 mm per month. No miniscrews failures were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study reports the preliminary results of the randomized clinical trial registered at www.register.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01717417 ).