Open AccessSPACE CLOSURE IN BIALVEOLAR DENTAL PROTRUSION CASES - A COMPARATIVE COMBINATION METHOD
Author(s) -
Nellore Chaitanya,
Arshad Am,
Praveen Krk,
C Prashant,
Sandeep Anant Bailwad,
P Navin,
O Balaji,
C Yogesh,
K Saurab
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
asian journal of pharmaceutical and clinical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2455-3891
pISSN - 0974-2441
DOI - 10.22159/ajpcr.2017.v10i7.17504
Subject(s) - molar , implant , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , dentistry , medicine , orthodontics , materials science , surgery , botany , biology , genus
Objective: To measure and compare the amount, rate and anchor loss after the en masse retraction of all anteriors with titanium mini-implant anchorage and conventional molar anchorage.Methods: This comparative clinical study sample comprised 12 patients (10 females, 2 males; mean age between 16 and 22 years). The implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Preretraction and post retraction lateral cephalograms were taken for measuring the amount, rate and anchor loss after the retraction.Results: Mean en masse retraction amounts, the rate of movement per month, and horizontal and vertical anchor loss at the maxillary implant site were 4.79 mm, 0.58 mm, 0 mm, and 0 mm, respectively. In the mandible, on implant sides were 4.66 mm, 0.56 mm, 0 mm, and 0 mm. Mean en masse retraction amounts, the rate of movement per month, and horizontal and vertical anchor loss at the maxillary conventional molar anchor side were 4.08 mm, 0.49 mm, 2.91 mm, and 1.66 mm. In the mandible, on conventional anchor sides were 3.54 mm, 0.48 mm, 3.12 mm, and 1.95 mm.Conclusion: En masse retraction had a faster rate of space closure with mini-implants as anchor units than the conventional molar anchorage preparation.