A CBCT evaluation of molar uprighting by conventional versus microimplant-assisted methods: an in-vivo study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Martires,Sergio
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Kamat,Nandini V., Dessai,Sapna Raut
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