» Articles » PMID: 31013131

Does Anchorage Loss Differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch Slot Bracket Systems?

Overview
Journal Angle Orthod
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2019 Apr 24
PMID 31013131
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems.

Materials And Methods: Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance.

Results: There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices ( = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm ( = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded ( = .383).

Conclusions: Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

Citing Articles

Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Papageorgiou S, Giannakopoulou T, Eliades T, Vandevska-Radunovic V Eur J Orthod. 2024; 46(6).

PMID: 39607678 PMC: 11602743. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjae060.


A scanning electron microscopy investigation of the precision of three orthodontic bracket slot systems.

Nahidh M, Yassir Y, Marrapodi M, Di Blasio M, Ronsivalle V, Cicciu M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):221.

PMID: 38347491 PMC: 10863106. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03841-y.

References
1.
Hoggan B, Sadowsky C . The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(5):482-8. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113001. View

2.
Deepak V, Malgaonkar N, Shah N, Nasser A, Dagrus K, Bassle T . Palatal rugae patterns in orthodontically treated cases, are they a reliable forensic marker?. J Int Oral Health. 2014; 6(5):89-95. PMC: 4229838. View

3.
van der Linden F . Changes in the position of posterior teeth in relation to ruga points. Am J Orthod. 1978; 74(2):142-61. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90081-7. View

4.
Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon A . Anchorage loss--a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod. 2004; 73(6):730-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0730:ALMR>2.0.CO;2. View

5.
Johnson E . Selecting custom torque prescriptions for the straight-wire appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143(4 Suppl):S161-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.003. View