Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China
2. Department of Orthodontics, First Dental Center, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China
Abstract
Summary
Background
Growth and development might lead to anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment, such as the mesial drift of molars, the compensation characteristics of upper molars following mandibular growth, or the angulation of molars before treatment. Different anchorage reinforcement devices have been developed to prevent mechanical anchorage loss, but the anchorage loss resulting from physiological factors should also be taken into account.
Objective
To explore the efficacy of a new strategy to control physiologic anchorage compared with that of the conventional straight-wire appliance.
Trial design
Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Methods
Participants of Han ethnicity were randomized into the physiologic anchorage spee-wire system (PASS) group or McLaughlin–Bennett–Trevisi (MBT™) straight-wire group by minimization random allocation. The eligibility criteria were patients with a Class I or II molar relationship, permanent dentition (11–35 years old), fixed appliances involving the extraction of at least two upper first premolars, and medium or maximum anchorage requirements. Pre-treatment and post-treatment dental casts were scanned into digital casts and measured using a blinded method. Mesial displacements of the upper first molars were considered as the primary outcome for evaluating anchorage control. Measurements were taken for subgroups based on age.
Results
Data from 60 participants were analysed. The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Mesial displacement of the upper first molar (in mm) was 2.96 ± 1.52 in the PASS group and 2.70 ± 1.66 in the MBT group (P = 0.521). The variation in incisor torque was −6.94 ± 6.35 degree in the PASS group and −11.76 ± 7.65 degree in the MBT group (P = 0. 010). The incisor retraction (in mm) was 4.24 ± 1.99 and 5.67 ± 2.27 in the PASS and MBT groups, respectively (P = 0.012). Adverse effects were not documented in any patient.
Limitation
The study was a single-centre study.
Conclusions
Compared with the MBT group, the PASS group without additional anchorage devices could attain well anchorage control by considering the dentoalveolar compensation of anchor teeth.
Registration
This RCT was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Chictr.org.cn) ChiCTR-TRC-13003260.
Funder
Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference31 articles.
1. Problem of anchorage in the treatment of malocclusion;Sheldon;The Journal of the American Dental Association,1944
2. The factor of stabilization in anchorage;Renfroe;American Journal of Orthodontics,1956
3. Class II malocclusion: the aftermath of a ‘perfect storm’;Tsourakis;Seminars in Orthodontics,2014
4. The role of mandibular growth in occlusal development;White,1983
5. Transition of molar relationships in different skeletal growth patterns;Kim;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2002
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献