Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An In vivo Study

被引:11
作者
Davis, D. [1 ]
Krishnaraj, R. [1 ]
Duraisamy, Sangeetha [1 ]
Ravi, K. [1 ]
Dilip, S. [1 ]
Charles, Anila [1 ]
Sushil, N. C. [1 ]
机构
[1] SRM Dent Coll, Dept Orthodontia, Madras 600089, Tamil Nadu, India
关键词
Anchorage; canine retraction; mini-implant;
D O I
10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the rate of canine retraction, the anchorage loss, and the change in the inclination of the first molars between molar and mini-implant anchorage. Objective: (1) To compare the rate of canine retraction between conventional molar anchorage and mini-implant anchorage in the maxilla and mandible. (2) To compare the amount of anchor loss between mini-implant-anchored and molar-anchored sides during canine retraction in the maxilla and mandible. Materials and Methods: Ten patients were included in the study. The implants were loaded immediately by applying a force of 100 g. Measurements were made in the pre-retraction and post-retraction lateral cephalograms. A line drawn vertically from the sella-nasion plane through the distal pterygomaxillary point was used as a reference line. Results: The mean rates of canine retraction were 0.95 and 0.82 mm/month in maxilla on the implant and molar sides, respectively, and were 0.81 and 0.76 mm/month in mandible on the implant and molar sides, respectively. The mean anchorage loss was 0.1 mm on the implant side and 1.3 mm on the molar side of the maxilla and 0.06 mm on the implant side and 1.3 mm on the molar side of the mandible. The mean change in molar inclination was 0.3 degrees on implant side and 2.45 degrees on molar side of the maxilla and was 0.19 degrees on implant side and 2.69 degrees on molar side of the mandible. Conclusions: Implant anchorage is an efficient alternative to molar anchorage.
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 342
页数:6
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]   Clinical and histologic analysis of the stability of microimplants with immediate orthodontic loading in dogs [J].
Chen, Yan ;
Kang, Sung Taek ;
Bae, Seong-Min ;
Kyung, Hee-Moon .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2009, 136 (02) :260-267
[2]  
Kyung Hee-Moon, 2003, J Clin Orthod, V37, P321
[3]  
Melsen Birte, 2005, J Clin Orthod, V39, P539
[4]  
Nanda R., 2005, BIOMECHANICS ESTHETI, V1st
[5]   Osseointegrated implants with pendulum springs for maxillary molar distalization:: A cephalometric study [J].
Oencag, Goekhan ;
Seckin, Oezlem ;
Dincer, Banu ;
Arikan, Fatih .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2007, 131 (01) :16-26
[6]   Long-term follow-up of dental single implants under immediate [J].
Palagi, Lisiane Meira ;
Sabrosa, Carlos Eduardo ;
Gava, Eveline C. B. ;
Baccetti, Tiziano ;
Miguel, Jose Augusto M. .
ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2010, 80 (05) :807-811
[7]  
Proffit WR, 2000, CONT ORTHODONTICS
[8]   Sequential bone healing of immediately loaded mini-implants: histomorphometric and fluorescence analysis [J].
Serra, Glaucio ;
Morais, Liliane S. ;
Elias, Carlos Nelson ;
Meyers, Marc A. ;
Andrade, Leonardo ;
Mueller, Carlos A. ;
Mueller, Marcelo .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2010, 137 (01) :80-90
[9]  
Storey E, 1952, AUST J DENT, V56, P11, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00166-5
[10]   Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage [J].
Thiruvenkatachari, Badri ;
Ammayappan, Pavithranand ;
Kandaswamy, Rajasigamani .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2008, 134 (01) :30-35