Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss between self-ligating appliance and Conventional pre-adjusted edgewise appliance using sliding mechanics – A retrospective study

Juneja, Pankaj; Shivaprakash, G.; Chopra, SS; Kambalyal, Prabhuraj

doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.01.006

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As there was no significant difference between the groups for anchorage loss, the null hypothesis was supported. Although anchorage loss between different bracket prescriptions 10 and between conventional and self-ligating brackets [4][5][6][7][8] has been investigated, this is the first study to investigate the effect of bracket slot size on anchorage loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all the studies that have evaluated anchorage loss have used samples with bilateral premolar extractions to assess the mesial displacement of the first molars. Unlike other studies using bilateral first premolar extractions, [4][5][6][7][8]10,14,15,17,18 both bilateral first or bilateral second premolar extraction cases were selected in this study to increase the generalizability of the results. This was not expected to introduce confounding as there would be a nonsignificant difference in the amount of anchorage loss between participants with first or second premolar extractions (assessed from cephalometric radiographs or dental models) as reported by Geron et al 3 Moreover, Xu et al 19 and Sandler 20 adopted different extraction patterns in their studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different techniques have been used for measuring anchorage loss; 3,5,7,8,10,14,15,17,18,20,33 however, the use of 3D digital models overcame the drawbacks with other techniques, such as ionizing radiation, difficulty in visualizing landmarks, and magnification and superimposition errors. Moreover, the current technique was cheaper and less time consuming than the superimposition of 3D scanned models as geometric superimposition software was not required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Treatment with conventional bracket systems has shown mean anchorage loss ranging from 0.59 to 5.33 mm as reported in studies comparing conventional and self-ligating brackets. [4][5][6][7][8] All the aforementioned studies used different methods for measuring anchorage loss which could explain the heterogeneity in results. Rajesh et al 10 used the same method in this study to compare Roth and MBT brackets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their retrospective study, Geron et al 3 found that anchorage loss was significantly greater with labial edgewise appliances compared with lingual edgewise appliances. Although various studies have concluded that no significant differences exist between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems for anchorage loss, [4][5][6][7][8][9] Rajesh et al 10 found that anchorage loss was significantly greater with Roth than MBT appliances. No study to date has investigated the difference in anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, which may vary due to the differences in play (friction between the bracket slot and archwire) and critical contact angle (angle of contact between archwire and bracket slot wall).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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