Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: Comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes

Kuroda, Shingo; Yamada, Kazuyo; Deguchi, Toru; Kyung, Hee-Moon; Takano‐Yamamoto, Teruko

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038

Cited by 95 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although theoretically this makes sense, some studies have shown mesialization of the anchorage unit. 3,4 In contrast, other studies have suggested distalization of the posterior anchorage unit, which may or may not be favorable. 5,6 Lastly, intrusion of the anterior segment often occurs during retraction with skeletal-based anchorage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

Lee

Heo

El‐Bialy

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate initial forces acting on teeth around the arch during en masse retraction using an in vitro Orthodontic SIMulator (OSIM). Materials and Methods: The OSIM was used to represent the full maxillary arch in a case wherein both first premolars had been extracted. Dental and skeletal anchorage to a posted archwire and skeletal anchorage to a 10-mm power arm were all simulated. A 0.019 3 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was used in all cases, and 15-mm light nickel-titanium springs were activated to approximately 150 g on both sides of the arch. A sample size of n¼40 springs were tested for each of the three groups. Multivariate analysis of variance (a ¼ 0.05) was used to determine differences between treatment groups. Results: In the anterior segment, it was found that skeletal anchorage with power arms generated the largest retraction force (P , .001). The largest vertical forces on the unit were generated using skeletal anchorage, followed by skeletal anchorage with power arms, and finally dental anchorage. Power arms were found to generate larger intrusive forces on the lateral incisors and extrusive forces on the canines than on other groups. For the posterior anchorage unit, dental anchorage generated the largest protraction and palatal forces. Negligible forces were measured for both skeletal anchorage groups. Vertical forces on the posterior unit were minimal in all cases (,0.1 N). Conclusions: All retraction methods produced sufficient forces to retract the anterior teeth during en masse retraction. Skeletal anchorage reduced forces on the posterior teeth but introduced greater vertical forces on the anterior teeth. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:549-555)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

Lee

Heo

El‐Bialy

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six of the included studies 2,11,32,36,38,40 were nonRCTs. Study scores ranged from 13 to 20 points out of 24.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of the included studies 4,[10][11][12][13][33][34][35]39 were RCTs, and all of them were considered to present high risk of bias.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Diar-Bakirly

Feres

Saltaji

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the transpalatal arch (TPA) as an anchorage device in preventing maxillary molar mesialization during retraction of the anterior teeth after premolar extraction. Materials and Methods: This systematic review intended to include patients indicated for upper premolar bilateral extraction and subsequent retraction of anterior teeth, considering the use of TPA as an anchorage tool in one of the treatment groups. The search was systematically performed, up to April 2015, in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, and all evidence-based medicine reviews via OVID, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) for non-RCTs. Results: Fourteen articles were finally included. Nine RCTs and five non-RCTs presented moderate to high risk of bias. Only one study investigated the use of TPA in comparison with no anchorage, failing to show significant differences regarding molar anchorage loss. A meta-analysis showed a significant increase in anchorage control when temporary anchorage devices were compared with TPA (mean difference [MD] 2.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.80 to 2.38], seven trials), TPA þ headgear (MD 1.71 [95% CI 0.81 to 2.6], four trials), and TPA þ utility arch (MD 0.63 [95% CI 0.12 to 1.15], 3 trials). Conclusion: Based on mostly moderate risk of bias and with some certainty level, TPA alone should not be recommended to provide maximum anchorage during retraction of anterior teeth in extraction cases. (Angle Orthod. 2017;87:147-158)

show abstract

“…Their potential has been demonstrated repeatedly during multibracket treatments for mesial movements 3,23 , for molar distalization 25,53,61,62 , for intrusion 18,64,65 , for extrusion 10,12 , for ''in masse'' retraction of anterior teeth 19,57,69 , or for maintaining anchorage in cases of premolar extractions 35,39,44 . A recent meta-analysis provides an update on their results compared to those obtained with extraoral force 43 and demonstrates greater anterior retraction and less loss of posterior anchorage with miniscrews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the very first clinical articles 56,70 , a great number of other treated cases have been published with sometimes outstanding results 1,2,[31][32][33]36,52,57,66,67 . The list of comparative studies 7,21,30,39,44 , experimental studies 26,45,51 , some randomized clinical trials 7,35,38,71 and systematic reviews 14,16,20,22,43 has continued to grow over the years. This can be seen as evidence for an ongoing therapeutic revolution that is impacting all aspects of orthodontics and that is suggesting new solutions for the buccal technique 8,15,28,34,36,46,55 as well as for lingual orthodontics 4,29,37,41,69 , for the aligner technique 11,73 or for orthopaedics 13 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of anchorage miniscrews in multibracket treatments without extractions

Baron¹

2014

J Dentofacial Anom Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, the interest for miniscrews is continuously growing as confirmed by the amount of recent published studies. In particular, their use allows to make corrections in a single phase and avoids extractions of premolars, while keeping usual goals of treatment. Main results of pilot studies and some clinical examples are presented here to illustrate our therapeutic approach for the treatment of tooth discrepancy in Class I, Class II and Class III situations.

show abstract

Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: Comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes

Cited by 95 publications

References 15 publications

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

Effectiveness of the transpalatal arch in controlling orthodontic anchorage in maxillary premolar extraction cases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of anchorage miniscrews in multibracket treatments without extractions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About