Literature DB >> 9345157

Efficacy of intraarch mechanics using differential moments for achieving anchorage control in extraction cases.

M M Rajcich1, C Sadowsky.   

Abstract

A prospective survey was conducted to test the hypothesis that maximum anchorage can be achieved in the maxillary arch by controlling forces and moments using intraarch mechanics while retracting canines into first premolar extraction sites. The sample consisted of 24 patients (mean age 18 years, 9 months) who required the extraction of two maxillary first premolars, with or without extractions in the mandibular arch. Movements of the first molars, canines, and incisors were evaluated with 6 cephalometric variables and 10 study model variables. T tests were used to assess differences between pretreatment and postretraction tooth positions. Cephalometrically, the maxillary first molars (left and right sides combined) moved mesially ONLY 0.7 mm (SD 0.43; p < 0.008). All other cephalometric variables showed no significant differences between the two time points. From the study models, the molars moved mesially ONLY 0.5 mm on both the right and left sides (right side SD = 0.43 and left side SD = 0.38; p < 0.005), while the canines were retracted on average 5.8 mm on the right side and 5.6 mm on the left. The molars and canines showed significant mesiopalatal and distolingual rotations, respectively. Many of the study model and cephalometric variables were significantly correlated to one another. This study questions the need to use adjunctive appliances, which directs a distal force to the posterior teeth, if horizontal molar anchorage control is a treatment objective. By controlling forces and moments, using intraarch mechanics while retracting maxillary canines into first premolar extraction sites, minimal molar anchorage loss occurred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9345157     DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70053-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  9 in total

1.  Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Authors:  Yassir A Yassir; Grant T McIntyre; Ahmed M El-Angbawi; David R Bearn
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Alexandre Protásio Vianna; Renato Parsekian Martins
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Efficacy of Second Molar to Achieve Anchorage Control in Maximum Anchorage Cases.

Authors:  S M Londhe; P Kumar; R Mitra; A Kotwal
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

4.  A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments.

Authors:  Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Francisco Herrero; Amine Fattal; Amirparviz R Davoody; Ravindra Nanda; Flavio Uribe
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Computerized Analysis of Digital Photographs for Evaluation of Tooth Movement.

Authors:  Mohammad Hossein Toodehzaeim; Maryam Karandish; Mohammad Nabi Karandish
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2015-03

6.  Factors predisposing to maxillary anchorage loss: a retrospective study of 1403 cases.

Authors:  Hong Su; Bing Han; Sa Li; Bin Na; Wen Ma; Tian-Min Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Renato Parsekian Martins; Alexandre Protásio Vianna
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Crevicular Alkaline Phosphatase Activity and Rate of Tooth Movement of Female Orthodontic Subjects under Different Continuous Force Applications.

Authors:  Rohaya Megat Abdul Wahab; Maryati Md Dasor; Sahidan Senafi; Asma Alhusna Abang Abdullah; Zulham Yamamoto; Abdul Aziz Jemain; Shahrul Hisham Zainal Ariffin
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2013-05-02

9.  The Effect of Partial Corticotomy on the Rate of Maxillary Canine Retraction: Clinical and Radiographic Study.

Authors:  Hosam Ali Baeshen
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.411

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.