Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement vs. Orthodontic Mini-implant: Comparison of Posterior Anchorage Loss During the En Masse Retraction of the Upper Anterior Teeth원문보기
This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients ...
This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022" slot, .019X.025" stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). A total of 11 anchorage variables were measured. Analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in treatment duration and anchorage variables at T0 among the three groups. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly larger retraction of the upper incisor edge (U1E-sag, 9.3mm:7.3mm, P<.05) and less posterior anchorage loss (U6M-sag, 0.7~0.9mm:2mm, P<.05; U6A-sag, 0.5mm:2mm, P<.01) than Group 1. The ratio of retraction amount of the upper incisor edge per 1 of anchorage loss in the upper molar made for the significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (4.6mm:7.0mm, P<.05). Group 3 showed a relatively distal inclination of the upper molar (P<.05) and the intrusion of the upper incisor and first molar (U1E-ver, P<.05; U6F-ver, P<.05) compared to Groups 1 and 2. Although OMI could not shorten the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum posterior anchorage than CAR.
This study sought to compare the amounts of posterior anchorage loss during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth between orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) and conventional anchorage reinforcement (CAR) such as headgear and/or transpalatal arch. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022" slot, .019X.025" stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI). Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). A total of 11 anchorage variables were measured. Analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in treatment duration and anchorage variables at T0 among the three groups. Groups 2 and 3 showed significantly larger retraction of the upper incisor edge (U1E-sag, 9.3mm:7.3mm, P<.05) and less posterior anchorage loss (U6M-sag, 0.7~0.9mm:2mm, P<.05; U6A-sag, 0.5mm:2mm, P<.01) than Group 1. The ratio of retraction amount of the upper incisor edge per 1 of anchorage loss in the upper molar made for the significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (4.6mm:7.0mm, P<.05). Group 3 showed a relatively distal inclination of the upper molar (P<.05) and the intrusion of the upper incisor and first molar (U1E-ver, P<.05; U6F-ver, P<.05) compared to Groups 1 and 2. Although OMI could not shorten the treatment duration, it could provide better maximum posterior anchorage than CAR.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Although the superiority of OMI to CAR in terms of posterior anchorage preservation during canine retraction has been reported13,14), there are few reports on the degree of posterior anchorage loss with OMI during the en masse retraction of the anterior teeth. Therefore, this study sought to compare the anchorage loss of the posterior teeth and amount of retraction of the anterior teeth in Class I and Class II division 1 malocclusion patients with lip protrusion and minimal crowding between CAR and OMI.
This study was performed to determine how much could OMI provide better posterior anchorage preservation than CAR during the en masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth in case of Class I malocclusion with minimal crowding. To estimate the effectiveness of OMI in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients, Group 3 was included in this study.
대상 데이터
A total of 52 patients were selected as final samples and allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Class I malocclusion and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion and OMI) (Table 1).
The initial subjects were 125 adult female patients (mean age= 23.32 years, range: 18~35 years) with Class I or Class II division 1 malocclusion with lip protrusion and minimal crowding and who needed maximum posterior anchorage. Based on the following criteria, the final samples were selected:
데이터처리
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan s multiple comparison test were done. Group 1 means Class I malocclusion with conventional anchorage reinforcement, Group 2, Class I malocclusion with orthodontic mini-implant, Group 3, Class II division 1 malocclusion with orthodontic mini-implant, SD, standard deviation, and Sig.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the differences at the T0 and T1 stages and change during T0 and T1 among the three groups, with the results verified using Duncan s multiple comparison test.
참고문헌 (19)
Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75:333-9.
Baek SH, Moon CH, Sung SJ, et al. Orthodontic mini-implant: Various treatment strategy and clinical application. Seoul, Korea: Jeesung Pub. Co.; 2007. p. 216-28.
Moon CH, Lee DG, Lee HS, Im JS, Baek SH. Factors associated with the success rate of orthodontic miniscrews placed in the upper and lower posterior buccal region. Angle Orthod 2008;78:101-6.
Baek SH, Kim BM, Kyung SH, Lim JK, Kim YH. Success rate and risk factors associated with mini-implants reinstalled in the maxilla. Angle Orthod 2008;78:895-901.
Cha BK, Lee YH, Lee NK, Choi DS, Baek SH. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device. Angle Orthod 2008;78:403-8.
Kim JW, Baek SH, Kim TW, Chang YI. Comparison of stability between cylindrical and conical type mini-implants: mechanical and histological properties. Angle Orthod 2008;78:692-8.
Herman RJ, Currier GF, Miyake A. Mini-implant anchorage for maxillary canine retraction: a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:228-35.
Thiruvenkatachari B, Pavithranand A, Rajasigamani K, Kyung HM. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:551-4.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.