Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction

Thiruvenkatachari, Badri; Pavithranand, A.; Rajasigamani, K; Kyung, Hee-Moon

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.014

Cited by 97 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…19,20 The aim of this paper was to assess the anchorage loss of permanent upper first molars after canine initial retraction between two different anchorage methods (Nance button and mini-implants).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results demonstrate that bone anchorage cannot be ensured, since the mechanics, the intensity and control of the loads applied are still very relevant factors to be considered. 20 One hypothesis to explain the anchorage loss in the mini-implant group can be possible attributed to the levelling and alignment stage, since the friction between the wire and the molar tubes might have caused the molars to rotate, as no stabilization procedure was ever done. At the end of the canine retraction molars were assessed but no conclusion was drown whether the molars had gone through rotation or tilting, as it would usually happen in any orthodontic movement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many systems (appliances) are used to retract canines during space closure, which depends on many factors: type of system used, load applied, technique and periodontal condition. 20 In this study, for Group A, mini-implants were inserted between the roots of permanent upper second pre-molars and first molars. Group B Nance button was employed as an anchorage system.…”

Section: Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding retraction movements, the load applied differs from initial canine retraction to anterior retraction. For initial retraction, the load ranges from 50 g 5,11 to 100 g, 5,20 whilst for anterior retraction it ranges from 150 to 200 g, 5 allowing for even higher load intensities such as 200 g and 300 g 5,9,11,12 with good results and without any jeopardise to the root structure or the periodontium. For molar mesialization movements towards the gaps of prematurely lost teeth, Roberts 5,15 suggests the use of 408 g for moving second and third molars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mini-implant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: a prospective study in cast models

Arantes¹,

Kina²,

Gonçalves³

et al. 2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Bone anchorage is a key factor for the successful management of some malocclusions for it allows the application of continuous forces, decreases treatment time and is independent from patient compliance. Methods:The goal of this work was to establish a dental model comparison in order to measure the anchorage loss after the initial retraction of upper canines between the two groups. Group A used mini-implants and Group B used Nance button. All patients had two models cast (M1 and M2). The first models were taken on baseline (M1) and the other models were taken after canine retraction (M2).Results: All measurements were pooled and submitted to statistical analysis. In order to verify the inter-examiner systematic error a paired t-test was performed. Dahlberg's formula was used to estimate the casual error. For comparison purposes between Before and After stages, a paired t-test was done. For the comparison between mini-implant and Nance button groups, a Student t-test was applied. All tests adopted a 5% (p<0.05) significance level. Conclusion:No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups when measurements and comparisons to assess molar anchorage loss after canine initial retraction were performed. Two different anchorage systems were applied on dental models (mini-implants and Nance's button) for each group. Keywords: Orthodontic anchorage procedures. Dental casting technique. Orthodontics.How to cite this article: Arantes FM, Kina J, Gonçalves MJB, Gurgel JA, Silva Filho OG, Santos ECA. Mini-implant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: A prospective study in cast models. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012 July-Aug;17(4):134-9. Resultados: todas as medidas foram tabuladas e submetidas à análise estatística. Para verificar o erro sistemático intraexaminador foi utilizado o teste t pareado. Na determinação do erro casual utilizou-se o cálculo de erro proposto por Dahlberg. Para comparação entre as fases Início e Após, foi utilizado o teste t pareado. Para a comparação entre os grupos de mini-implante e Botão de Nance, foi utilizado o teste t de Student para medidas independentes. Em todos os testes foi adotado nível de significância de 5% (p<0,05).Conclusão: ao se medir e comparar em modelos dentários a perda de ancoragem dos molares após a retração inicial de canino utilizando-se dois sistemas de ancoragem distintos (Mini-implante e Botão de Nance), pôde-se observar a inexistência de diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois grupos.Palavras-chave: Procedimentos de ancoragem ortodôntica. Modelos dentários. Ortodontia.Como citar este artigo: Arantes FM, Kina J, Gonçalves MJB, Gurgel JA, Silva Filho OG, Santos ECA. Miniimplant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: A prospective study in cast models. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012 July--Aug;17(4):134-9.Enviado em: 12 de fevereiro de 2010 -Revisado e aceito: 20 de setembro de 2011» Os autores declaram não ter interesses associativos, comerciais, de propriedade ou financeiros,...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mini-implant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: a prospective study in cast models

Arantes¹,

Kina²,

Gonçalves³

et al. 2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty-five full texts were obtained for the second phase evaluation, of which 11 articles [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] were later excluded. The reasons for exclusion are listed in Appendix 2.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

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

Vergleich skelettaler und konventioneller Ver ankerungsmethoden bei der präoperativen Dekompensation einer skelettalen Klasse III

Wilmes

Olthoff²,

Drescher

2009

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction

Cited by 97 publications

References 8 publications

Mini-implant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: a prospective study in cast models

Mini-implant and Nance button for initial retraction of maxillary canines: a prospective study in cast models

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

Vergleich skelettaler und konventioneller Ver ankerungsmethoden bei der präoperativen Dekompensation einer skelettalen Klasse III

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About