International Clinical and Medical Case Reports Journal (ISSN: 2832-5788) | Volume 2, Issue 9 | Research Article | Open Access
Ali Asger Nakib*
Department of Dentistry, Bankura Sammilani Medical College and hospital, Bankura, West Bengal, India
*Correspondence to: Ali Asger Nakib
Fulltext PDFBackground: The employment of extraoral (headgear, facemask) or intraoral (transpalatal arch, nance holding arch, multiple teeth as anchor segments) appliances in the past has not been without drawbacks, including poor patient compliance and unfavourable reactive tooth motions. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs), which are anchored in bone, were developed to get around these restrictions. They may be employed as direct anchors or to support the anchorage unit's posterior teeth (indirect anchorage).
Aim: This study compares the treatment effects of retraction using two methods of anchorage, namely, mini-implant and conventional methods, using sliding mechanics.
Methods and Materials: 32 participants were enrolled and divided into two groups of 16 each. Following sampling, the traditional group (Group 2) had 4 males and 12 females, while the implant group (Group 1) included 8 males and 8 females (mean age 19.87 years) (mean age of 22.25 years). The 0.022" slot MBT appliance with readjusted edges was selected, and the molars were banded. A 19 x 25 ss wire that was passively engaged was used for retraction. A lateral cephalogram, an OPG, study models, extraoral and intraoral pictures, as well as other pre-retraction data, were taken at this time and repeated after 4 months of retraction.
Results: The implant group's molar displayed a small amount of net distal displacement, measuring -0.45 0.94 mm on the mesial and -0.48 ± 0.93 mm on the distal side of the tooth. However, the conventional group demonstrated a highly substantial mesial movement of 1.18 mm on the distal and 1.0 mm on the mesial. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p 0.05). There was some extrusion in the implant group as well as a net intrusion of -0.61±0.78 mm on the mesial and -0.78±0.10 mm on the distal in the vertical direction. The typical group, however, displayed extrusion.
Conclusion: In terms of effective tooth movement or anchoring management, it may be said that mini-implants offer a better therapeutic outcome. As a result, they shorten the length of therapy, which is advantageous for both the patient and the orthodontist.
Mini-implant, Anchorage, Orthodontic treatment
Bibek Kumar Mandal, Ali Asger Nakib. Comparison between the Treatment Effects of Retraction Using Mini-Implant Method of Anchorage and Conventional Method of Anchorage Using Sliding Mechanics.Int Clinc Med Case Rep Jour. 2023;2(9):1-9.