Authors : Mala Ram Manohar, Shanthala K. S, DaswaniBadal O
DOI : 10.18231/j.jco.2017.030
Volume : 1
Issue : 1
Year : 2017
Page No : 13-20
The effectiveness of a single non-osseointegratedmidpalatal mini-implant to provide sagittal and vertical anchorage hasn’t been compared with buccal mini-implants and conventional dental anchorage.
Aims: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of a single midpalatal implant in conjunction with a transpalatal arch (TPA), with the anchorage control of buccal inter-radicular mini-implants and the conventional dental anchorage.A prospective clinical study was designed to compare the anchorage control in the sagittal and vertical dimensions, their retraction rate and total treatment durations.
Method and Materials: Thirty patients were treated, ten each with conventional dental anchorage, buccal mini-implant anchorage, and midpalatal mini-implant anchorage with TPA. Each patient had four lateral cephalograms taken at pretreatment T0, post leveling and aligning T1, post space closureT2, and post-treatment Tp, which were used for evaluation of results. Treatment changes were measured on these cephalograms for mesial and vertical changes in molar position, sagittal and vertical changes in incisor positions, retraction rate and total treatment duration. Statistical analyses used: Arithmetic mean, standard deviation, ‘Paired t-test’ and One-way Anova were used. All the data were analyzed with SPSS version 11. Post-hoc Tukey’s test was used for groupwise comparison.
Results: In the sagittal dimension, themidpalatal mini-implant showed better anchorage control than buccal miniimplants, which in turn fare better than conventional dental anchorage. In the vertical dimension, the buccal mini-implants maintained anchorage better than the midpalatal mini-implant,which in turn did better than conventional dental anchorage. There is no significant difference in the rate of retraction and total treatment time amongst the three anchorage systems.
Conclusions: A singlemidpalatalnon-osseointegratingmini-implant, secured to the transpalatal arch, should be preferred for absolute anchorage for enmasse retraction in maxilla, in view of its better sagittal anchorage, predictability of anatomic location and relative ease of placement, over bilateral buccal mini-implants (except in high mandibular plane angle cases where the bilateral buccal mini-implants may be preferred for their better vertical anchorage control).
Key-words: mini-implants, TADs, anchorage, buccal, palatal