2010Chinese Journal of Aesthetic MedicineRequires access

Comparison of mesializing mandibular molar by micro implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage

Xingwei Cai

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage during mandibular molars mesialization in Class I malocclusal patients. Methods 24 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of mandibular molars from 2 aspects and implant anchorage loss by mandibular central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.82 mm per month, mesial tipping 2.5° , mandibular central incisor do not move.In intraoral anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.76 mm per month, mesial tipping 7.5° , mandibular central incisor move bucally 3.0mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully mesialized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of mandibular molar differenciate from each other.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage during mandibular molars mesialization in Class I malocclusal patients. Methods 24 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of mandibular molars from 2 aspects and implant anchorage loss by mandibular central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.82 mm per month, mesial tipping 2.5° , mandibular central incisor do not move.In intraoral anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.76 mm per month, mesial tipping 7.5° , mandibular central incisor move bucally 3.0mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully mesialized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of mandibular molar differenciate from each other.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage during mandibular molars mesialization in Class I malocclusal patients. Methods 24 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of mandibular molars from 2 aspects and implant anchorage loss by mandibular central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.82 mm per month, mesial tipping 2.5° , mandibular central incisor do not move.In intraoral anchorage group: the velocity of mandibular second molar mesializing was 0.76 mm per month, mesial tipping 7.5° , mandibular central incisor move bucally 3.0mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully mesialized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of mandibular molar differenciate from each other.

Key concepts: Molar, Implant, Dentistry, Mandibular first molar, Mandibular second molar, Orthodontics, Mandibular lateral incisor, Incisor

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of mesializing mandibular molar by micro implant anchorage and intraoral anchorage — Research Paper | ScholarLens