Thank Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review

Al-Maghlouth, Basma A.; AlMubarak, Aqilah; Almaghlouth, Ibrahim; Khalifah, Reem Al; Alsadah, Amal; Hassan, Ali

doi:10.2147/ccide.s283102

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The micro-implant contributes to the maintenance of a healthy and clean oral environment, avoids damage of gums and enamel, protects masticatory function, and exerts a significant orthodontic effect. However, a previous study has found that the microimplant anchorage can still damage a patient's gums and alveolar mucosa, resulting in increased levels of inflammatory factors [26]. Without effective intervention, microimplant anchorage may cause infection, gingivitis, and periodontitis, resulting in poor efficacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Cefaclor in Orthodontics through Micro-Implant Anchorage in Patients with Periodontitis

2024

Ann Ital Chir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: Chronic periodontitis leads to gingival swelling, hyperplasia, and tooth mobility, which affects orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the application of cefaclor in orthodontics through micro-implant anchorage in patients with periodontitis. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with periodontitis who received micro-implant anchorage treatment in the department of orthodontics at the First People's Hospital of Yongkang City from July 2019 to January 2022. According to different treatment regimens, these patients were divided into the test group (patients receiving cefaclor and micro-implant anchorage treatment) and the control group (patients receiving micro-implant anchorage treatment only). The plaque index (PLI), gingival index (GI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), and serum inflammatory factor levels were compared between the two groups after treatment. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients were included in the study, (44 males and 61 females, median age 21 [15–25] years), 51 in the cefaclor group and 54 in the no cefaclor group. After treatment, the PLI, GI, and SBI scores in the two groups were higher than those before treatment, and the levels of serum inflammatory markers significantly increased (p < 0.05). After treatment, the PLI, GI, and SBI scores in the test group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.001). The levels of serum interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and tumor necrosis factor-α were significantly lower in the test group, and the interleukin-2 level was higher in the test group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cefaclor and micro-implant anchorage have a good clinical effect on orthodontics in patients with periodontitis, improving periodontal health and reducing inflammatory response.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Cefaclor in Orthodontics through Micro-Implant Anchorage in Patients with Periodontitis

2024

Ann Ital Chir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A stable and effective anchorage is vital to a successful orthodontic treatment [21,22]. Previous clinical cases used internal anchorages, external anchorages and intermaxillary anchorages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between effects of mini-implant anchorage and face-bow anchorage in orthodontics for children

2024

JOCPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To study the values of mini-implant anchorage in orthodontics for children in the mixed dentition stage, 78 children in the mixed dentition stage who had accepted orthodontic treatment in our hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were enrolled into this study. All children were treated with straight-wire appliance. According to their anchorages, children were divided into observation group and control group based on the random number table. Children in the control group used face-bow to control the anchorages and children in the observation group used mini-implants to control the anchorages. After treatment, the upper central incisor convex distance difference, inclination angle of the upper central incisor, displacement of the molar, gingival health, masticatory function, treatment effect and adverse reaction rate of children in two groups were compared. One year after treatment, compared with children in the control group, children in the observation group had smaller the upper central incisor convex distance difference, inclination angle of the upper central incisor, displacement of the molar, small scores of plaque index (PLI), bleeding index (BI) and gingival index (GI), stronger biting force and higher masticatory efficiency, lower adverse reaction rate during treatment, better treatment effect, higher satisfaction of orthodontic treatment. And differences of all the above indexes were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mini-implant anchorages have good stability and directive force, and have certain values in orthodontics for children in the mixed dentition stage. KeywordsOrthodontics treatment; Children in the mixed dentition stage; Mini-implant anchorage; Face-bow anchorage How to cite this article: Zhouwen Hou, Xiaowei Qu, Lei Hou, Fuying Ren. Comparison between effects of mini-implant anchorage and face-bow anchorage in orthodontics for children.

show abstract

“…A nonsurgical option can be intrusion of the upper arch using a temporary anchorage system anteriorly and posteriorly. [17] Over intrusion of the incisors should be avoided using utility arches and reverse curves as it might again lead to flattening of smile arcs. [18] CASE II: Treatment plan: As the subject has a hypodivergent growth pattern along with genetically engrammed strong musculature, [19] an autorotation of mandible following superior impaction of maxilla is not recommended.…”

Section: Case Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristic Variants in Long Faces with Increased Anterior Facial Height

Solanki

K.K

2022

IJOrthoR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial characteristics are affected by facial proportions, growth pattern, facial heights and smile of the patients. Long face syndrome usually presents with an increased lower anterior and total anterior facial height, a gummy smile, a hyperdivergent growth pattern and decreased facial height. However, there are many variations in the posterior facial height and the growth pattern. There can be patients having an increased anterior facial height with increased or average posterior facial height, or an average and reduced mandibular plane angle. This paper aimed at reviewing the various characteristic facial variants of an increased anterior facial height. This article reviews three such variants of an increased anterior facial height. It particularly highlights the variant with increased anterior and posterior facial height and the modification in the treatment of such cases. The most common treatment option for the normally occurring variant of hyperdivergent growth pattern with a reduced posterior facial height is surgical superior impaction.

show abstract

Thank Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Application of Cefaclor in Orthodontics through Micro-Implant Anchorage in Patients with Periodontitis

Application of Cefaclor in Orthodontics through Micro-Implant Anchorage in Patients with Periodontitis

Comparison between effects of mini-implant anchorage and face-bow anchorage in orthodontics for children

Characteristic Variants in Long Faces with Increased Anterior Facial Height

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About