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
. 2019 Jul;89(4):605-610.
doi: 10.2319/081918-608.1. Epub 2019 Apr 23.

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Yassir A Yassir, Grant T McIntyre, Ahmed M El-Angbawi, David R Bearn
Randomized Controlled Trial

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Yassir A Yassir et al. Angle Orthod. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems.

Materials and methods: Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance.

Results: There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm (P = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P = .383).

Conclusions: Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

Keywords: Anchorage loss; Fixed appliances; Slot size.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Anteroposterior first permanent molar distance to the medial end of the third palatal rugae. (A) Pretreatment. (B) Posttreatment.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean anchorage loss (mm) for each group.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Mean anchorage loss (mm) for each group (patients without anchorage devices).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics 5th ed. St Louism No: Elsevier/Mosby;; 2013.
    1. Su H, Han B, Li S, Na B, Ma W, Xu TM. Factors predisposing to maxillary anchorage loss: a retrospective study of 1403 cases. PLoS one. 2014;9(10):e109561. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss—a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:730–737. - PubMed
    1. Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:292–297. - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Almeida MR, Herrero F, Fattal A, Davoody AR, Nanda R, Uribe F. A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:937–942. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types