A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000300035 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the three-dimensional effects of the conventional helical uprighting spring (CA) and the mini-implant assisted helical uprighting spring (MIA), using CBCT scans. Methods: Twenty patients with mesially tipped second mandibular molars were divided into two groups: CA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a conventional helical uprighting spring with conventional anchorage; and MIA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a mini-implant supported uprighting spring. Molar uprighting was observed in both groups for a period of four months. Two standardized 11×5-cm CBCT sections of the mandible were taken, being one prior to uprighting and one at the end of the four month follow-up. Statistical analyses at the beginning of treatment and after a 4 month follow-up were performed, with a significance level of p< 0.05. Results: The mean amount of change in mesiodistal angulation in the MIA group was 8.53 ± 2.13o (p< 0.001) and in the CA group was 9.8 ± 0.5o (p< 0 .001). Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to buccolingual inclination of canine, first and second premolars (p< 0.05), second molar (p< 0.001) and extrusion of second molar (p< 0.05). Conclusions: The mean amount of change in the mesial angulation of the second molar in the CA as well as the MIA groups was similar. MIA, which used mini-implant as a source of anchorage, was more effective in preventing movement of the anchorage teeth as well as preventing extrusion of the second molar in the vertical plane, when compared to the CA group, which used dental units as a source of anchorage. |
id |
DPI-1_686b637bbe64081f1a6e4ab9eb680d32 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2176-94512018000300035 |
network_acronym_str |
DPI-1 |
network_name_str |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo studyDental implantMolarCone-beam computed tomographyABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the three-dimensional effects of the conventional helical uprighting spring (CA) and the mini-implant assisted helical uprighting spring (MIA), using CBCT scans. Methods: Twenty patients with mesially tipped second mandibular molars were divided into two groups: CA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a conventional helical uprighting spring with conventional anchorage; and MIA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a mini-implant supported uprighting spring. Molar uprighting was observed in both groups for a period of four months. Two standardized 11×5-cm CBCT sections of the mandible were taken, being one prior to uprighting and one at the end of the four month follow-up. Statistical analyses at the beginning of treatment and after a 4 month follow-up were performed, with a significance level of p< 0.05. Results: The mean amount of change in mesiodistal angulation in the MIA group was 8.53 ± 2.13o (p< 0.001) and in the CA group was 9.8 ± 0.5o (p< 0 .001). Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to buccolingual inclination of canine, first and second premolars (p< 0.05), second molar (p< 0.001) and extrusion of second molar (p< 0.05). Conclusions: The mean amount of change in the mesial angulation of the second molar in the CA as well as the MIA groups was similar. MIA, which used mini-implant as a source of anchorage, was more effective in preventing movement of the anchorage teeth as well as preventing extrusion of the second molar in the vertical plane, when compared to the CA group, which used dental units as a source of anchorage.Dental Press International2018-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000300035Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.23 n.3 2018reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/2177-6709.23.3.35.e1-9.onlinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMartires,SergioKamat,Nandini V.Dessai,Sapna Rauteng2019-07-26T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512018000300035Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2019-07-26T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
title |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
spellingShingle |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study Martires,Sergio Dental implant Molar Cone-beam computed tomography |
title_short |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
title_full |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
title_fullStr |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
title_full_unstemmed |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
title_sort |
A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study |
author |
Martires,Sergio |
author_facet |
Martires,Sergio Kamat,Nandini V. Dessai,Sapna Raut |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Kamat,Nandini V. Dessai,Sapna Raut |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Martires,Sergio Kamat,Nandini V. Dessai,Sapna Raut |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Dental implant Molar Cone-beam computed tomography |
topic |
Dental implant Molar Cone-beam computed tomography |
description |
ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the three-dimensional effects of the conventional helical uprighting spring (CA) and the mini-implant assisted helical uprighting spring (MIA), using CBCT scans. Methods: Twenty patients with mesially tipped second mandibular molars were divided into two groups: CA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a conventional helical uprighting spring with conventional anchorage; and MIA group, in which 10 patients were treated using a mini-implant supported uprighting spring. Molar uprighting was observed in both groups for a period of four months. Two standardized 11×5-cm CBCT sections of the mandible were taken, being one prior to uprighting and one at the end of the four month follow-up. Statistical analyses at the beginning of treatment and after a 4 month follow-up were performed, with a significance level of p< 0.05. Results: The mean amount of change in mesiodistal angulation in the MIA group was 8.53 ± 2.13o (p< 0.001) and in the CA group was 9.8 ± 0.5o (p< 0 .001). Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to buccolingual inclination of canine, first and second premolars (p< 0.05), second molar (p< 0.001) and extrusion of second molar (p< 0.05). Conclusions: The mean amount of change in the mesial angulation of the second molar in the CA as well as the MIA groups was similar. MIA, which used mini-implant as a source of anchorage, was more effective in preventing movement of the anchorage teeth as well as preventing extrusion of the second molar in the vertical plane, when compared to the CA group, which used dental units as a source of anchorage. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000300035 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512018000300035 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/2177-6709.23.3.35.e1-9.onl |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press International |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press International |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.23 n.3 2018 reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics instname:Dental Press International (DPI) instacron:DPI |
instname_str |
Dental Press International (DPI) |
instacron_str |
DPI |
institution |
DPI |
reponame_str |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
collection |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
artigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com |
_version_ |
1754122398102192128 |