KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / European Oral Research / 2017 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3 Suppl 1

THE EFFECT OF MINI-IMPLANT SUPPORTED ANCHORAGE ON MAXILLARY INCISOR POSITION DURING RETRACTION- A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Yasas Shri Nalaka JAYARATNE
Flavio URİBE
Nandakumar JANAKİRAMAN
Sayfa
90–101
Yayın Tarihi
2017-11-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies.Conclusion: More RCT’s that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on incisor changes during space closure.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the antero-posterior, vertical and angular changes of maxillary incisors with conventional anchorage control techniques and mini-implant based space closure methods.Materials and Methods: The electronic databases Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library and Open Grey were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria as well as their references were manually searched.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies.Conclusion: More RCT’s that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on incisor changes during space closure.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Maxillary incisors · mini-implant · retraction

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the antero-posterior, vertical and angular changes of maxillary incisors with conventional anchorage control techniques and mini-implant based space closure methods.Materials and Methods: The electronic databases Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library and Open Grey were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords. Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria as well as their references were manually searched. The primary outcome data (linear, angular, and vertical maxillary incisor changes) and secondary outcome data (overbite changes, soft tissue changes, biomechanical factors, root resorption and treatment duration) were extracted from the selected articles and entered into spreadsheets based on the type of anchorage used. The methodological quality of each study was assessed.Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The amount of incisor retraction was greater with buccally placed mini-implants than conventional anchorage techniques. The incisor retraction with indirect anchorage from palatal mini-implants was less when compared with buccally placed mini-implants. Incisor intrusion occurred with buccal mini-implants, whereas extrusion was seen with conventional anchorage. Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies.Conclusion: More RCT’s that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on incisor changes during space closure.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

JAYARATNE, Y. S. N., URİBE, F., JANAKİRAMAN, N. (2017). THE EFFECT OF MINI-IMPLANT SUPPORTED ANCHORAGE ON MAXILLARY INCISOR POSITION DURING RETRACTION- A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. European Oral Research, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3 Suppl 1, 90–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/242966

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: Traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75(3):333-339.
  2. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(1):28-37.
  3. Guo Y, Han X, Xu H, Ai D, Zeng H, Bai D. Morphological characteristics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for angle's class II division 1 malocclusions. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):44. Janson G, Brambilla Ada C, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, Neves LS. Class ii treatment success rate in 2- and 4-premolar extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(4):472-479.
  4. Markic G, Katsaros C, Pandis N, Eliades T. Temporary anchorage device usage: A survey among swiss orthodontists. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):29. Tan TJ. Profile changes following orthodontic correction of bimaxillary protrusion with a preadjusted edgewise appliance. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11(3):239-251.
  5. Zablocki HL, McNamara JA, Jr., Franchi L, Baccetti T. Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(6):852-860.
  6. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):30-35.
  7. Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss--a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod 2003;73(6):730-737.
  8. Davoody AR, Posada L, Utreja A, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Uribe F, Nanda R. A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(5):568-576.
  9. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):493-501.
  10. Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson PE, Skeggs RM, O’Brien KD. Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(5):615-624.
  11. Tominaga JY, Chiang PC, Ozaki H, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Bourauel C, Yoshida N. Effect of play between bracket and archwire on anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics: A three-dim