2010
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion

Abstract: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine differences between the outcomes of treatment using implant anchorage compared with straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in bimaxillary protrusion patients. The lateral cephalograms of 28 adult orthodontic patients (3 males and 25 females; age, 24.9 ± 5.0 years) who had an Angle Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion were selected. Group 1 (14 patients; 1 male and 13 females; age, 25.0 ± 5.1 years) received sliding mechanics with impl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
44
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
5
44
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[17][18][19] In this patient, because the extraction of the first premolars was effective for relieving the anterior discrepancy and correcting the labioclination of the anterior teeth, we planned to extract the restored maxillary second premolars on both sides instead of the first premolars, and we enhanced the maxillary posterior anchorage with miniscrews. As a result, the stationary anchorage of the maxilla with miniscrews achieved minimum mesial movement of the maxillary molars, improved the facial profile, and resolved the anterior discrepancy with the remaining the first premolars on both sides, which had better forms than did the second premolars and lacked damage on the left side.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[17][18][19] In this patient, because the extraction of the first premolars was effective for relieving the anterior discrepancy and correcting the labioclination of the anterior teeth, we planned to extract the restored maxillary second premolars on both sides instead of the first premolars, and we enhanced the maxillary posterior anchorage with miniscrews. As a result, the stationary anchorage of the maxilla with miniscrews achieved minimum mesial movement of the maxillary molars, improved the facial profile, and resolved the anterior discrepancy with the remaining the first premolars on both sides, which had better forms than did the second premolars and lacked damage on the left side.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eleven articles 1,12,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] reported the SNA. A forest plot is demonstrated in Figure 2, showing that there was no significant difference between the miniimplant and the traditional anchorage technique (P ¼ .71) and that the weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was À0.038 (À0.198, 0.138).…”
Section: Skeletal Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six studies 1,16,17,[20][21][22] investigated this outcome. Because of existing heterogeneity, a random-effect model was adopted.…”
Section: Skeletal Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Under local anesthesia, all third molars were extracted and four titanium screws (1.6 mm in diameter, 10 mm long, Dual-Top; Jeil Medical Corporation, Seoul, Korea) were placed into the maxillary and mandibular alveolar bone between the first and second molars on both sides ( Figure 4B), as described in previous reports. [28][29][30][31][32] Initially, the upper dental arch was expanded with a quad-helix appliance. A preadjusted edgewise appliance (0.018 3 0.025 inch) was placed on the upper and lower premolars and molars on both sides, and leveling and alignment of the teeth in these regions were performed prior to leveling and alignment in the anterior region.…”
Section: Treatment Progressmentioning
confidence: 99%