A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth

Abstract

Background: Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1 st premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics. Objective: We conducted this study with the aim of retracting the proclined maxillary anterior teeth and to check for efficient retraction, type of tooth movement during retraction, and amount of anchorage loss. Methods: Patients with proclined anterior teeth where therapeutic extraction of first premolars is required were included in the study, where anchorage was taken with mini-implants in one group, and in the second group, conventional anchorage method of 1 st and 2 nd molar banding with TPA was chosen. Each group consisted of 8 subjects. Lateral cephalogram was taken both preretraction and 4 months after starting retraction to compare anchor loss, rate of retraction, and type of tooth movement of retracted anteriors, in both groups. Results: The retraction in the implant group was more than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05). Anchorage loss was seen to be greater in conventional group than in the implant group and was also significant statistically. The type of tooth movement of the anterior teeth on retraction was also compared, with the implant group showing predominantly controlled tipping and the conventional group showing uncontrolled tipping movement.

A comparative study on anterior teeth retraction-related hard and soft tissue changes with physiologic anchorage control technique

“…Anchorage preparation is considered to be the most important step in clinical orthodontics [13,14]. TADs are recognized to be the prominent anchorage reinforcement devices because of more anchorage preservation than conventional devices [15] and controlled tipping of anterior teeth [16]. This study represented significant improvement of profile in Damon group, which could partly contribute to the low-friction movement and assistance of TADs in half of cases.…”

Dentoalveolar and Soft Tissue Changes Following en-Masse Anterior Retraction With Different Force Vectors in Subjects With Bidental Protrusion: A Retrospective Evaluation

“…Molar anchor loss of 1 to 2 mm is clinically acceptable whereas higher amounts can be detrimental to the overall efficiency of the treatment, especially when anchorage demand is critical. Mini implants are more appropriate for patients who need high or maximum anchorage, particularly for vertical growth patterns [ 19 ].…”