Comparison of temporary anchorage devices and transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal effects of canine retraction using conventional anchorage reinforcement systems and comparing them with the usage of TADs. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 50 patients having Class I malocclusions with bimaxillary protrusion indicated for first premolar extraction, and allocated into two groups. The first group consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 18,7 years (min:14, max:22 years, 16 girls and 9 boys) that TADs were applied as an anchorage mechanic between attached gingiva of upper second premolar and first molar teeth. The second group consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 19,4 years (min:15, max:23 years, 14 girls and 11 boys) that conventional molar anchorage with Transpalatal arch (TPA) was applied for the anchorage mechanics against canine retraction. Results: The results showed that mean mesial movement and the tipping of the first molars in TAD group between T0 - T1 were insignificant (P > 0,05), however in the TPA group were significant (P<0,01). Vertical movement of the molars were not significant when two groups were compared (P>0,05). Conclusion: Although TPA is a useful appliance, it doesn't provide an effective anchorage control on anteroposterior movement maxillary first molar teeth concerning first premolar extraction treatment. TADs are more convenient to provide absolute anchorage during maxillary canine retraction in contrast to transpalatal arch.

Key words:

Absolute anchorage - miniscrews - temporary anchorage devices - transpalatal arch

• REFERENCES

• 1 Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 593-600
• 2 Park HS, Bae SM, Kyung HM, Sung JH. Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion. J Clin Orthod 2001; 35: 417-22
• 3 Park YC, Chu JH, Choi YJ, Choi NC. Extraction space closure with vacuum-formed splints and miniscrew anchorage. J Clin Orthod 2005; 39: 76-9
• 4 Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009; 36: 687-95
• 5 Burstone CJ. Rationale of the segmented arch. Am J Orthod 1962; 48: 805-22
• 6 Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 361-78
• 7 Roberts WE, Helm FR, Marshall KJ, Gongloff RK. Rigid endosseous implants for orthodontic and orthopedic anchorage. Angle Orthod 1989; 59: 247-56
• 8 Smith RJ, Burstone CJ. Mechanics of tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 294-307
• 9 Ioi H, Nakata S, Nakasima A, Counts AL. Anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored Japanese facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 128: 206-11
• 10 Keim RG. Answering the questions about miniscrews. J Clin Orthod 2005; 39: 7-8
• 11 Park HS, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Microscrew implant anchorage sliding mechanics. World J Orthod 2005; 6: 265-74
• 12 Nanda R, Uribe FA. Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2009
• 13 Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: A clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 803-10
• 14 Favero L, Brollo P, Bressan E. Orthodontic anchorage with specific fixtures: Related study analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 84-94
• 15 Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 703-10
• 16 Gelgör IE, Büyükyilmaz T, Karaman AI, Dolanmaz D, Kalayci A. Intraosseous screw-supported upper molar distalization. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 838-50
• 17 Herman RJ, Currier GF, Miyake A. Mini-implant anchorage for maxillary canine retraction: A pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 228-35
• 18 Chung KR, Cho JH, Kim SH, Kook YA, Cozzani M. Unusual extraction treatment in Class II division 1 using C-orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 155-66
• 19 Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1983; 17: 266-9
• 20 Kuroda S, Katayama A, Takano-Yamamoto T. Severe anterior open-bite case treated using titanium screw anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 558-67
• 21 Erverdi N, Keles A, Nanda R. The use of skeletal anchorage in open bite treatment: A cephalometric evaluation. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 381-90
• 22 Ohnishi H, Yagi T, Yasuda Y, Takada K. A mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage in a deep overbite case. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 444-52
• 23 Jeon YJ, Kim YH, Son WS, Hans MG. Correction of a canted occlusal plane with miniscrews in a patient with facial asymmetry. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 244-52
• 24 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: 615-24
• 25 Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: Comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 636-45
• 26 Janssen KI, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Sandham A. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics – A review of various systems in animal and human studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 75-88
• 27 Thiruvenkatachari B, Pavithranand A, Rajasigamani K, Kyung HM. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 551-4
• 28 Garfinkle JS, Cunningham Jr. LL, Beeman CS, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kim MO. Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in premolar extraction therapy in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 642-53
• 29 Storey E, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relations to tooth movement. Aust J Dent 1952; 56: 11-8
• 30 Iwasaki LR, Haack JE, Nickel JC, Morton J. Human tooth movement in response to continuous stress of low magnitude. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 175-83
• 31 Ricketts RM. Development of retraction sections. Found Orthod Res Newsletter 1974; 5: 41-4
• 32 Lee BW. Relationship between tooth-movement rate and estimated pressure applied. J Dent Res 1965; 44: 1053
• 33 Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage – A randomized clinical trial: Cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 606-15
• 34 Sharma M, Sharma V, Khanna B. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: A randomized clinical trial. J Orthod 2012; 39: 102-10