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

Wilmes, Benedict; Olthoff, Gudrun; Drescher, Dieter

doi:10.1007/s00056-009-9909-y

Cited by 30 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[21][22][23][24][25] It has been recently suggested that TPA can control anchorage, especially when it is combined with TADs. [24][25][26] In segmented arch mechanics, canine retraction T-loops have been used to control anchorage during space closure by modulating moments of the posterior teeth/part of the T-loop. 3,10,11 The aim of this study was to compare anchorage loss between two groups of patients who were treated either with continuous arch or segmented arch technique using T-loops to close extraction spaces while TPA was used to support the upper first molars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq

Alkhadra

El‐Bialy

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare anchorage condition in cases in which transpalatal arch was used to enhance anchorage in both continuous and segmented arch techniques. Materials and Methods: Twenty cases that required first premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment and transpalatal arch to enhance anchorage were included in this study. Ten cases were treated using the continuous arch technique, while the other 10 cases were treated using 0.019 3 0.025-inch TMA T-loops with posterior anchorage bend according to the Burstone and Marcotte description. Lateral cephalometric analysis of before and after canine retraction was performed using Ricketts analysis to measure the anteroposterior position of the upper first molar to the vertical line from the Pt point. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test.Results: There was a statistically significant forward movement of the upper first molar in cases treated by continuous arch mechanics (4.5 6 3.0 mm) compared with segmented arch mechanics (20.7 6 1.4 mm; P 5 .01). Conclusions:The posterior anchorage bend to T-loop used to retract the maxillary canine can enhance anchorage during maxillary canine retraction. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:380-385.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq

Alkhadra

El‐Bialy

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six of the included studies 2,11,32,36,38,40 were nonRCTs. Study scores ranged from 13 to 20 points out of 24.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study scores ranged from 13 to 20 points out of 24. Significant limitations were identified for most of the studies, such as the retrospective enrollment of the sample 2,11,32,40 with nonconsecutive inclusion of patients 2,32,36 or unclear reports about inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies that used only TPA as an anchorage device during retraction of anterior teeth were finally selected: seven were RCTs 6,10,12,13,33,34,35 and two non-RCTs. 2,32 Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 30 patients per study group, and age ranged from 13 to 22 years. In most of the studies, which performed en masse retraction, followup records were obtained at the end of retraction of the anterior teeth when extraction space was fully closed.…”

Section: 3840mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A consistent finding from all RCTs 6,10,13,33-34 implementing en masse retractions is that the TPA did not prevent molar mesial movement. On the other hand, when TPA was used as the sole anchorage mean to retract canines in a two-step retraction technique, the two related studies 12,35 still failed to favor the use of TPA in preventing mesial 2 Wilmes et al 32 Lai et al 40 Lee et al 36 Borsos et al 38 movement of the molars. In a recent study, El-Bialy et al 41 concluded that TPA alone does not minimize anchorage loss when used with continuous arch mechanics, and they recommended not using the TPA.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children

Watkinson

Harrison²,

Furness

et al. 2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 30 publications

References 20 publications

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About