Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Apr;19(2):128-36.
doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cc4aa5.

Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant

Asim Ghouse Basha et al. Implant Dent. 2010 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the difference between rate of en-masse retraction with mini-implant and molar anchorage.

Patients and method: A comparative study consisting of 14 patients (all females) randomized into 2 groups. Seven in group I (nonimplant) molar was used as anchor for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth (mean age 16 years SD +/- 1.41). In group II (implant), mini-implant was used as anchorage to retract the anterior teeth (mean age 17.36 SD +/- 1.35). In both groups, all first premolars were extracted. After leveling and aligning, surgical steel mini-implant of 1.3 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length were placed between the roots of second premolar and first molar in the maxilla in the implant group. Implants were immediately loaded with 2 N of force. In nonimplant group molar was used as anchorage. The retraction and postretraction lateral cephalograms were taken. Rate of retraction and anchor loss were measured by using pterygoid vertical in maxilla.

Results: Four implants became loose during the treatment, which were subsequently replaced. The stability of surgical steel in this study was 71.4%. Student t test were used to analyze the treatment charges in 2 groups. Mean anchor loss in maxilla in nonimplant group. No differences in the mean rate of retraction time were noted in both groups.

Conclusion: Mini-implants provided absolute anchorage in patients requiring maximum anterior retraction. No differences in the mean retraction time were noted between 2 groups.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources