Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 1112
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 468-474

A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth

1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Manav Rachna Dental College, FDS, MRIIRS, Faridabad, Haryana, India
2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research Institute, Mullana, Ambala, India
3 National Dental College and Hospital, Derabassi, Mohali, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abhita Malhotra
3, Link Road, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi - 110014
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_841_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: Proclined teeth has been one of the main reasons for compromised esthetics. In a patient with proclined anteriors, retraction is done after 1st premolar extraction. Absolute/maximum anchorage is required to achieve the best esthetics. Objective: We conducted this study with the aim of retracting the proclined maxillary anterior teeth and to check for efficient retraction, type of tooth movement during retraction, and amount of anchorage loss. Methods: Patients with proclined anterior teeth where therapeutic extraction of first premolars is required were included in the study, where anchorage was taken with mini-implants in one group, and in the second group, conventional anchorage method of 1st and 2nd molar banding with TPA was chosen. Each group consisted of 8 subjects. Lateral cephalogram was taken both preretraction and 4 months after starting retraction to compare anchor loss, rate of retraction, and type of tooth movement of retracted anteriors, in both groups. Results: The retraction in the implant group was more than in the conventional group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Anchorage loss was seen to be greater in conventional group than in the implant group and was also significant statistically. The type of tooth movement of the anterior teeth on retraction was also compared, with the implant group showing predominantly controlled tipping and the conventional group showing uncontrolled tipping movement.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded17    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal