Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Angle Orthod ; 94(5): 532-540, 2024 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39230024

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate anchorage loss after en masse retraction in bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients using friction vs frictionless mechanics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion needing extraction of upper first premolars and en masse retraction with maximum anchorage were included in this two-arm, parallel, single-center, single-blinded randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio using fully sealed opaque envelopes. Friction group retraction utilized elastomeric power chain between miniscrews and hooks crimped mesial to upper canines on 17 × 25 stainless steel archwire. Frictionless group used customized T-loop springs loading upper first molars indirectly anchored to miniscrews. Activation was every 4 weeks until full retraction. The primary outcome assessed was anchorage loss evaluated at cusp tip and root apex of the first molar. First molar rotation, incisor tip and torque, and root resorption of anterior teeth were evaluated on digital models and cone beam computed tomography taken before and after space closure. RESULTS: Anchorage loss at crown of first molar was significantly more in frictionless group by 2.1 mm (95% CI = -0.4 to 3.5), (P = .014), while there was no significant difference in anchorage loss at root apex between groups. Significant mesial in molar rotation of 6.672° (95% CI = 12.2-21.2), (P = 0.02) was greater in the frictionless group. Both groups showed comparable tip, torque, and root resorption values. No severe harms were reported. There was mild gingival overgrowth and inflammation in the frictionless group due to T-loop irritation. CONCLUSIONS: Extra anchorage considerations are needed during en masse retraction when frictionless mechanics is implemented as higher anchorage loss and molar rotation were detected. No difference in tip, torque, and root resorption was observed.


Subject(s)
Friction , Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures , Tooth Movement Techniques , Humans , Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures/instrumentation , Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures/methods , Female , Male , Adolescent , Tooth Movement Techniques/methods , Tooth Movement Techniques/instrumentation , Single-Blind Method , Orthodontic Wires , Molar , Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/methods , Maxilla , Young Adult , Root Resorption/etiology , Root Resorption/diagnostic imaging , Torque , Orthodontic Appliance Design , Bone Screws , Orthodontic Space Closure/instrumentation , Orthodontic Space Closure/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL