Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion
Author(s) -
Ah-Young Lee,
Young Ho Kim
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
isrn dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2090-438X
pISSN - 2090-4371
DOI - 10.5402/2011/321206
Subject(s) - malocclusion , orthodontics , dentition , reinforcement , dentistry , medicine , implant , psychology , surgery , social psychology
Objective . To compare the amounts of anchorage loss in the upper first molar (U6) and of retraction of the upper central incisor (U1) in cases with Class I malocclusion between orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) and conventional anchorage reinforcements (CARs). Methods . The subjects were 40 female adult patients with Class I malocclusion who were treated with extraction of the first premolars and sliding mechanics. The subjects were divided into Groups 1 ( N = 20, CAR) and 2 ( N = 20, OMI) according to anchorage method. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). Seven skeletal and dental variables and ten anchorage variables were measured. Mann-Whitney test was used for statistical analysis. Results . Group 2 showed significantly larger retraction of U1 (U1E-sag, 9.5 mm : 7.1 mm, P < .05) and less anchorage loss of U6 (U6M-sag, 0.2 mm : 2.2 mm, P < .05; U6A-sag, 0.3 mm versus 2.4 mm, P < .01) than Group 1. There was opposite vertical movement in U1 and U6 between Groups 1 and 2 (U1E-ver, 0.9 mm intrusion : 0.7 mm extrusion; U6F-ver, 1.0 mm intrusion : 0.9 mm extrusion, P < .05). Conclusion . Although OMI could not reduce the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum anchorage of U6, greater retraction of U1, intrusion of U1 and U6 than CAR.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom