Comparison of anterior retraction and anchorage control between en masse retraction and two-step retraction: A randomized prospective clinical trial.
Anchorage loss
En masse retraction
Orthodontics
Retraction
Space closure
Two-step retraction
Journal
The Angle orthodontist
ISSN: 1945-7103
Titre abrégé: Angle Orthod
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370550
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
27
11
2018
medline:
4
12
2019
entrez:
27
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR) during space closure. Forty-eight adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion who were planned for treatment with extraction of four first premolars were enrolled. All patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the ER (n = 24) group or the TSR (n = 24) group. The main outcome was the amount of posterior anchorage loss in the molars and the retraction of the incisors between ER and TSR; the difference in incisor and molar inclination was a secondary outcome. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and oblique cephalometric radiographs at 45° were taken before retraction (T1) and after space closure (T2). Cephalograms were digitized and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla and mandible by one operator who was blinded to the treatment group. Neither incisor nor molar crown movements showed any significant differences between the ER and TSR. There were no significant differences in the tipping of incisors and molars between the two groups. No significant differences existed in the amount of retraction of incisors and anchorage loss of molars between ER and TSR. Changes in incisor and molar tipping were similar, with the crowns showing more movement than the apex.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30475647
doi: 10.2319/051518-363.1
pmc: PMC8120878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190-199Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):542-51
pubmed: 15877034
Angle Orthod. 2012 Sep;82(5):881-8
pubmed: 22390676
J Orthod Sci. 2013 Jan;2(1):28-37
pubmed: 24987640
Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83
pubmed: 23787192
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):544.e1-9; discussion 544-5
pubmed: 21055588
Prog Orthod. 2018 Jan 5;18(1):41
pubmed: 29302879
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Sep;126(3):344-53
pubmed: 15356499
Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):973-8
pubmed: 18004930
J Clin Orthod. 1990 Apr;24(4):251-60
pubmed: 2094736
Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Mar-Apr;21(2):115-25
pubmed: 27275623
J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017 Dec 02;51(3 Suppl 1):S90-S101
pubmed: 29354313
Br J Orthod. 1977 Apr;4(2):53-64
pubmed: 273440
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):30-5
pubmed: 18617100
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Jun;115(6):619-27
pubmed: 10358243
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jan;131(1):9-15
pubmed: 17208101