scholarly journals Sub-mucosal micro-screws as ideal temporary anchorage devices

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 200-204
Author(s):  
Amir-André Doustkam ◽  
Sylvia Riemenschneider-Chillès
Keyword(s):  
Temporary Anchorage Devices

Interception of developing class III malocclusion with temporary anchorage devices: A case report

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-135
Author(s):  
Maciej Dobrzyński ◽  
Katarzyna Miśków ◽  
Krzysztof Dowgierd
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Class Iii Malocclusion ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

scholarly journals Various methods of canine retraction in premolar extraction space: A case series

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-315
Author(s):  
Neeteesh K Shukla ◽  
Shivam Verma ◽  
Parnita Dwivedi ◽  
Nimmi Gupta ◽  
Sneha Singh
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Maxillary Canine ◽  
Premolar Extraction ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
Anchorage Loss

Following article is the review and presentation of various methodologies of canine retraction [e.g.– methods under sliding and friction less mechanics, facilitation with TADs (Temporary Anchorage Devices) and MOPs (Micro-Osteo-Perforations), and invasive procedures etc.] and comparison of these methods in terms of rate of canine retraction, and molar anchorage loss. Patient’s age ranges between 15y to 19y and only right maxillary canine was taken for comparison purpose.

scholarly journals Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment using TADs: Case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-164
Author(s):  
Tina Pajevic ◽  
Jovana Juloski ◽  
Marija Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Incisor Retraction ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

Introduction. Orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 (II/1) malocclusions in adults can be challenging since skeletal effects are limited. Possible treatment options are orthodontic camouflage or orthognatic surgery, in severe cases. The aim of this paper was to present a successful management of Class II malocclusion in an adult patient using temporary anchorage devices (TADs). Case report. After detailed clinical examination, study models and cephalometric analysis, a 26 years old patient was diagnosed with Class II malocclusion, an overjet of 12 mm, congenitally missing tooth 41 and midline shifted to the right in upper dental arch. In prior orthodontic treatment, patient had upper premolars extracted. Posterior teeth in upper left quadrant were shifted mesially. The camouflage treatment was considered, using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) to distalize posterior teeth on the left side, and gain space for incisor retraction and midline correction in upper dental arch. Results. Using TADs as additional anchorage in anterior region and coil spring for molar distalization, the space was made for tooth 23, midline correction and incisor retraction. After 40 months, a satisfactory result was achieved, overjet and midline correction, class I canines occlusion and class II molar occlusion. Conclusion. Class II/1 malocclusion in adults can be successfully treated using TADs. The success depends on the severity of malocclusion and patient cooperation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document