» Articles » PMID: 16627183

Comparison and Measurement of the Amount of Anchorage Loss of the Molars with and Without the Use of Implant Anchorage During Canine Retraction

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2006 Apr 22
PMID 16627183
Citations 25
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare and measure the amount of anchorage loss with titanium microimplants and conventional molar anchorage during canine retraction.

Methods: Subjects for this study comprised 10 orthodontic patients (7 women, 3 men) with a mean age of 19.6 years (range, 18 to 25 years), who had therapeutic extraction of all first premolars. After leveling and aligning, titanium microimplants 1.3 mm in diameter and 9 mm in length were placed between the roots of the second premolars and the first molars. Implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular arches on 1 side in 8 patients and in the maxilla only in 2 patients. A brass wire guide and an intraoral periapical radiograph were used to determine the implant positions. After 15 days, the implants and the molars were loaded with closed-coil springs for canine retraction. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after retraction, and the tracings were superimposed to assess anchorage loss. The amount of molar anchorage loss was measured from pterygoid vertical in the maxilla and sella-nasion perpendicular in the mandible.

Results: Mean anchorage losses were 1.60 mm in the maxilla and 1.70 mm in the mandible on the molar anchorage side; no anchorage loss occurred on the implant side.

Conclusions: Titanium microimplants can function as simple and efficient anchors for canine retraction when maximum anchorage is desired.

Citing Articles

The success rate of infrazygomatic mini-implants placed with and without surgical guides: a historical control study.

Yuan L, Zhao R, Liu J, Tang R, Bai S, Liu X BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):124.

PMID: 39849429 PMC: 11760651. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05472-x.


Evaluating palatal mucosal thickness in orthodontic miniscrew sites using cone-beam computed tomography.

Burak K, Hilmi B BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1153.

PMID: 39343869 PMC: 11439259. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04935-x.


Space Closure with Different Appointment Intervals: A Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Trial.

ElSayed H, El-Beialy A, Palomo J, Mostafa Y Contemp Clin Dent. 2024; 15(2):129-134.

PMID: 39206234 PMC: 11349072. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_617_21.


Three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary tooth movement in extraction patients with three different miniscrew anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial.

Zhang L, Guo R, Xu B, Wang Y, Li W Prog Orthod. 2022; 23(1):46.

PMID: 36529797 PMC: 9760583. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-022-00441-4.


Miniscrew Implant supported Maxillary Canine Retraction with and without Corticotomy Facilitated Orthodontics (CFO).

Kumar S, Verma G, Hassan N, Shaikh S, Anand B, Anjan R J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 13(Suppl 2):S1286-S1290.

PMID: 35017972 PMC: 8687018. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_106_21.