Comparative Evaluation of Anchorage Loss with Implant-Aided Retraction and Frictionless Mechanics with Conventional Anchorage in Bimaxillary Protrusion Cases

Arvind, Prasanna; Navaneethan, R; Rengalakshmi, Sri

doi:10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2021035965

Cited by 2 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All articles that did not meet these criteria were excluded. Finally, the systematic review included ten articles [16,17,23,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. The PRISMA flow diagram of study identification, screening, and inclusion is given in Figure 1.…”

Section: Literature Search Flow and The Retrieved Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of the ten included studies are presented in Table 2. Four of the studies were randomized controlled clinical trials [7,27,31,32], one was a non-randomized split-mouth study [17,23], and five were non-randomized two-group comparative studies [16,26,[28][29][30]. The studies included 255 adult patients.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies (70%) reported gender distribution within the sample; the male to female ratios were varied, being approximately 1:2 in two studies [23,29], 1:3 in two studies [17,31], and three articles included almost all female patients [27,30,32]. Three studies (30%) did not report gender distribution for the included patients [16,26,28]. Five studies (50%) mentioned the ages of the samples included in the study, with a mean age range from 15 to 25 years in the recruited samples [17,27,29,30,32].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies included Class I malocclusion cases with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion that required the extraction of first four premolars [16,26,27,30,32]; four studies included Class II malocclusion cases that required the extraction of the upper first premolars only for retracting the upper anterior teeth [17,23,28,29]; one study included both types of malocclusions [31].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four out of ten comparative studies evaluated the retraction of the upper canines. Two studies examined the retraction of the upper incisors [27,32], and four comparative studies evaluated the retraction of the upper six anterior teeth together (en-masse retraction) [26,28,30,31].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

How Effective Are Non-Frictional Techniques Compared to Sliding Techniques in the Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth When Using Buccal Fixed-Appliance Therapy? A Systematic Review

Kheshfeh,

Hajeer,

Al Hinnawi

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods for retracting the anterior teeth are divided into frictional methods and non-frictional methods. However, evidence regarding the superiority of one technique over the other is still lacking in the available literature. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of frictional methods of anterior teeth retraction compared to the non-frictional ones. The extracted data included the mechanism of application of the retraction force and its intensity, the observation period, follow-up records, and outcome measures. Ten studies were included in this review; the results did not favor a specific technique regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and loss of anchorage during canine retraction, although a preference was shown for the sliding technique in the rate of en-masse retraction (0.74 versus 0.39 mm/month) and the anchorage control during the retraction of the incisors (0.5 versus 0.1 mm/month). The control of the incisor’s torque during the en-masse retraction was higher when frictionless techniques were used (−12° versus −7°). Regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement, the non-frictional technique is characterized by a high sensitivity to the quality of the design, and the sliding technique was generally effective. As for controlling the torque of the incisors, the preference is for the non-frictional technique. Overall, there is a need to conduct more studies with an appropriate design.

show abstract

Section: Literature Search Flow and The Retrieved Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How Effective Are Non-Frictional Techniques Compared to Sliding Techniques in the Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth When Using Buccal Fixed-Appliance Therapy? A Systematic Review

Kheshfeh,

Hajeer,

Al Hinnawi

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of Treatment Effects of en Masse Mandibular Arch Distalization Using Skeletal Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Systematic Review

Setvaji,

Sundari

2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandibular arch distalization using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) is effective in correcting borderline Class lll cases without surgery. This review analysed the existing literature evaluating the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after en masse mandibular arch distalization using TADs. We followed PRISMA guidelines and registered this review in PROSPERO database CRD42023450524. PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched. Orthodontic patients requiring en masse mandibular distalization using TADs were compared with different modalities of distalization. Dental changes were evaluated along with skeletal and soft tissue changes and treatment duration. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and retrospective studies were eligible to be included. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I tool ("Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions"). Of 1764 identified records, seven studies (one non-RCT, one prospective clinical trial, and five retrospective cohort studies) were included. One study had a low risk of bias, three had moderate bias, two had serious bias, and one had critical bias. All studies showed molar distalization and distal tipping with significant retraction of the lower lip. Miniplates showed greater distalization compared to miniscrews. Interradicular miniscrews exhibited the least distal tipping. Changes in SNB, ANB, occlusal plane angle, and mandibular plane angle were reported. Retromolar screws and ramal plates reported reduced treatment duration. TADs are effective in en masse distalization of mandibular dentition with intrusive or extrusive effects.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of Anchorage Loss with Implant-Aided Retraction and Frictionless Mechanics with Conventional Anchorage in Bimaxillary Protrusion Cases

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

How Effective Are Non-Frictional Techniques Compared to Sliding Techniques in the Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth When Using Buccal Fixed-Appliance Therapy? A Systematic Review

How Effective Are Non-Frictional Techniques Compared to Sliding Techniques in the Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth When Using Buccal Fixed-Appliance Therapy? A Systematic Review

Evaluation of Treatment Effects of en Masse Mandibular Arch Distalization Using Skeletal Temporary Anchorage Devices: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About