Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitika Monga ◽  
Om Prakash Kharbanda ◽  
Vilas Samrit
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
Bimaxillary Protrusion ◽  
En Masse Retraction

scholarly journals Comparison of anterior retraction and anchorage control between en masse retraction and two-step retraction: A randomized prospective clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Pigato Schneider ◽  
Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior ◽  
André da Costa Monini ◽  
Ary dos Santos Pinto ◽  
Ki Beom Kim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Space Closure ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
Bimaxillary Protrusion ◽  
Best Fit ◽  
En Masse Retraction

ABSTRACT Objectives: The purpose of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR) during space closure. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion who were planned for treatment with extraction of four first premolars were enrolled. All patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the ER (n = 24) group or the TSR (n = 24) group. The main outcome was the amount of posterior anchorage loss in the molars and the retraction of the incisors between ER and TSR; the difference in incisor and molar inclination was a secondary outcome. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and oblique cephalometric radiographs at 45° were taken before retraction (T1) and after space closure (T2). Cephalograms were digitized and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla and mandible by one operator who was blinded to the treatment group. Results: Neither incisor nor molar crown movements showed any significant differences between the ER and TSR. There were no significant differences in the tipping of incisors and molars between the two groups. Conclusions: No significant differences existed in the amount of retraction of incisors and anchorage loss of molars between ER and TSR. Changes in incisor and molar tipping were similar, with the crowns showing more movement than the apex.

scholarly journals Horizontal and vertical changes in anchor molars after extractions in bimaxillary protrusion cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pratik Chandra ◽  
Rohit S. Kulshrestha ◽  
Ragni Tandon ◽  
Abhishek Singh ◽  
Ashish Kakadiya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Vertical Plane ◽  
Vertical Movement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Vertical Changes ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
Bimaxillary Protrusion ◽  
Maximum Anchorage ◽  
Sliding Mechanics

Objective To evaluate changes in the anchor molar position (horizontal, vertical) after retraction in bimaxillary protrusion maximum anchorage cases. Materials and Methods Thirty patients requiring maximum anchorage after extraction of the first premolars were selected for this study. The second molars were banded in both arches along with trans-palatal arch in the maxillary arch and lingual arch in the mandibular arch. En mass retraction was done using sliding mechanics. Horizontal and vertical positions of the anchor first molars were evaluated cephalometrically before and after orthodontic retraction. Results In the horizontal plane, maxillary first molars showed net mesial movement of 1.72 mm, and there was a statistical difference between the pre- and post-values (P < 0.001). The mandibular molars showed a net horizontal movement of 2.26 mm, and there was a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-values (P < 0.001). In the vertical plane, there was vertical movement of the maxillary anchor molars by a net value of 0.95 mm which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The mandibular anchor molars moved vertically by a net value of 0.45 mm. This difference was statistically not significant. Conclusion There was anchorage loss seen in both the planes (horizontal, vertical) of the maxillary anchor molars. In the mandibular anchor molars, there was anchorage loss seen only in the horizontal plane. No anchorage loss was seen in the vertical plane.

scholarly journals Optimizing Anterior En Masse Retraction with Miniscrew Anchorage

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavankumar Janardan Vibhute
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Skeletal Anchorage ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Force Vector ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Attached Gingiva ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
Sliding Mechanics ◽  
Retraction Force ◽  
En Masse Retraction

In severely protrusive patients, skeletal anchorage from miniscrew is often used to avoid anchorage loss with preferred miniscrew location near centre of resistance (Cres) of posterior teeth. Biomechanical requirement for directing retraction force towards Cres of posterior teeth demands the insertion of miniscrew in loose mucosa, where risk of infection and failure increases. In addition, undesirable biomechanical side effects on anterior and posterior segments may be possible in all three planes, when continuous arch sliding mechanics are installed with miniscrew anchorage. This paper describes technique of molar-stabilizing power arm (MSPA) for simultaneous intrusion and retraction of anteriors with miniscrew placement at attached gingiva between 1st molar and 2nd premolar. Advantages of this technique include (i) the need of miniscrews placement in loose mucosa apically near the Cres of the posterior teeth is eliminated, (ii) the risk of infection and miniscrew failure is lowered since the miniscrew is placed in attached gingiva rather than the loose mucosa, and (iii) by adjusting vertical length or replacing MSPA, alteration of the retraction force vector is possible in all three planes; thus, need of removal and repositioning of the miniscrew (e.g., in correction of occlusal cant) can be eliminated.

Comparison of Rate of En masse Retraction and Anchorage Loss in Conventional Labial Appliance with Labial and Lingual Force: A Clinical Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-126
Author(s):  
Dilshad Quraishi ◽  
Thilagarani P. Rajoo ◽  
Dhanyasi Ashok Kumar ◽  
Rani Hamsa P. Rajoo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
En Masse Retraction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document