JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

[Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion].

PURPOSE: To compare the treatment effects in patients with maxillary protrusion between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage.

METHODS: Thirty patients with maxillary protrusion treated with bilateral maxillary first premolars extractions and high anchorage were selected. They were randomly divided into implant anchorage group and traditional intraoral anchorage group. Each group had 15 cases. The casts and the cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Three-dimensional model analysis was used to compare the teeth movements between the two groups and cephalometric analysis was used to compare the changes of skeletal and soft tissues. The differences were analyzed with SPSS 17.0 software package.

RESULTS: In the implant anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (6.661±1.328) mm and intruded by (0.129±1.815) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (5.788±2.009) mm and extruded by (2.623±1.776) mm. There was no significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement (P>0.05), but there was significant difference in vertical movement (P<0.05). In the implant anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (0.608±1.045) mm, intruded by (0.608±1.045) mm and moved palatally by (0.477±0.904) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (1.503±0.945) mm, extruded by (0.072±0.690) mm and moved palatally by (0.883±0.752)mm. There was significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement and vertical movement (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in horizontal movement(P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the changes of cephalometric measurements of skeletal and soft tissues (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: Implant anchorage may be superior in vertical control of the maxillary incisors and also superior in sagittal and vertical control of the maxillary molars to traditional intraoral anchorage during management of maxillary protrusion.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app