English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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.

isrn dentistry

Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion