Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq, Adel; Alkhadra, Thamer; El‐Bialy, Tarek

doi:10.2319/050615-306.1

Cited by 12 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mean anchorage loss in both appliance groups ranged from 3.30 mm to 3.86 mm and, after excluding cases with anchorage devices, it ranged from 3.26 mm to 4.17 mm for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems, respectively. This was slightly less than that found by Alhadlaq et al 34 when using a transpalatal arch with continuous arch mechanics (4.5 mm measured cephalometrically). However, anchorage loss was greater than reported by Lee and Kim 35 for both their TADs and conventional anchorage reinforcement (headgear) groups, which could explain the reduced anchorage loss in that study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Yassir

McIntyre

El‐Angbawi

et al. 2019

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems. Materials and Methods: Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n ¼ 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre-and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance. Results: There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P ¼ .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR ¼ 3.86 mm, ALL ¼ 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR ¼ 3.73 mm, ALL ¼ 3.47 mm (P ¼ .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P ¼ .383). Conclusions: Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment. (Angle Orthod. 2019;89:605-610.)

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Yassir

McIntyre

El‐Angbawi

et al. 2019

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether the use of TPA and a second molar as reinforcement anchorage can reduce stress remains unclear. Reducing the stress distribution is thought to reduce the anchorage loss, and some clinicians believe that TPA prevents the loss of anchorage [1][2][3]. However, it was previously reported that TPA does not significantly affect anchorage [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation of Stress Distribution on the Upper First Molar and Alveolar Bone with the Transpalatal Arch and Upper Second Molar Using Finite Element Analysis

Pratiwi

Widayati

Purbiati

2019

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the differences in the stress distribution on the upper first molar with and without transpalatal arch and a second molar when a 150 g force is applied during canine distalization using finite element analysis. Material and Methods: We constructed several models with data obtained by scanning human skulls using cone beam computed tomography. A robust three-dimensional maxillary model was then constructed by assembling the previously completed robust models of the maxilla and second molar with and without transpalatal arch, and canine distalization was simulated using a 150 g force. The data consisted of color spectrum figures representing the stress distribution. Results: For the upper first molar and its alveolar bone, there was a statistically significant difference in the stress distribution between the upper first molar with transpalatal arch, the upper first molar without transpalatal arch, and the upper first molar with transpalatal arch and a second molar as reinforcement. Conclusion: Stress distribution on the first molar and alveolar bone, indicated by the maximum and minimum principal stress, as well as the pressure von Mises, exhibited a similar pattern. The highest amount of stress was observed in the model of the first molar without transpalatal arch, followed by the model of the first molar with transpalatal arch and, finally, the model of the first molar with transpalatal arch and a second molar.

show abstract

“…Although previous studies suggested that the adjunctive use of TADs should be signi icantly favored over the only use of TPA as an anchorage device during retraction when accurately stipulated (Diar-Bakirly et al, 2017). Results of previous studies show that TPA alone doesn't reduce anchorage loss when used with continuous arch mechanics owing to the very fact that different and unequal moments are often applied with TPA, as in cases of unilateral arch expansion (Alhadlaq et al, 2016). Transpalatal arch poses the danger of coming on the brink of the palatal tissue and getting embedded within the palatal tissue (Samantha et al, 2017), hence the "U" loops are often adjusted by constriction of the loops to stay the transpalatal arch faraway from the palatal tissues (Kumar et al, 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Frequency of Patient’s Requiring TPA/LSA During Orthodontic Therapy- An Institutional Study

Varghese

Leelavathi

2020

ijrps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TPA, also known as Transpalatal Arch is used as an adjunctive equipment during orthodontic therapy to regulate anchorage in the vertical, transverse and sagittal (antero-posterior) dimensions. TPA have many uses such as space maintenance, retention and molar anchorage after rapid maxillary expansion. TPAs have eminent versatility, appearing as a stand-alone appliance or as an accessory appliance to fixed appliances. Hence the aim of this study is to assess the number of patients who required TPA/LSA during an orthodontic therapy. Retrospective cross sectional study was carried out and the case records of patients requiring TPA/LSA was collected by reviewing patient records and analyzing the data of patients between June 2019- April 2020. The collected data was subjected to Chi-square test for statistical analysis and correlation using the SPSS software. The findings of this study showed female predilection with a percentage of 53% and males with a percentage of 47%. It also revealed that the prevalence of patients requiring TPA during an orthodontic therapy was 32% and LSA was 26%. This study shows that 32.24% of the patients required TPA and 25.75% of the patients also required LSA during an orthodontic treatment and this was found to be statistically significant.

show abstract

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Simulation of Stress Distribution on the Upper First Molar and Alveolar Bone with the Transpalatal Arch and Upper Second Molar Using Finite Element Analysis

A Retrospective Study Assessing the Frequency of Patient’s Requiring TPA/LSA During Orthodontic Therapy- An Institutional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About