Abstract:Introduction: The goal of this retrospective cephalometric study was to compare orthodontic outcomes in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion malocclusion treated with extraoral headgear or mini-implants for maximum anchorage. Materials: Forty-seven subjects with Angle Class II malocclusion or Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were treated by retracting the maxillary dentoalveolar process by using the extraction space of the bilateral maxillary first premolars. Two anchorage systems were used. Group 1 (n = 22) received traditional anchorage preparation with a transpalatal arch and headgear; group 2 (n = 25) received mini-implants (miniplates, miniscrews, or microscrews) for bony anchorage. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were superimposed to compare the following parameters between groups: (1) amount of maxillary central incisor retraction, (2) reduction in maxillary central incisor angulation, (3) anchorage loss of the maxillary first molar, (4) movements of the maxillary central incisor and first molar in the vertical direction, and (5) changes in skeletal measurements representing the anteroposterior and vertical jaw relationships. Results: The skeletal anchorage group had greater anterior tooth retraction (8.17 vs 6.73 mm) and less maxillary molar mesialization (0.88 vs 2.07 mm) than did the headgear group, with a shorter treatment duration (29.81 vs 32.29 months). Translational movement of the incisors was more common than tipping movement, and intrusion of the maxillary dentition was greater, in patients receiving miniplates than in those receiving screw-type bony anchorage, resulting in counterclockwise rotation of the mandible and a statistically significant decrease in the mandibular plane angle. Cephalometric analysis of skeletal measurements in patients with low to average mandibular plane angles showed no significant difference between groups, although greater maxillary incisor retraction and less mesial movement of the first molar were noted in the mini-implant group. In patients with a high mandibular plane angle, those receiving skeletal anchorage had genuine intrusion of the maxillary first molar and reduction in the mandibular plane angle, whereas those receiving headgear anchorage had extrusion of the maxillary first molar and an increase of mandibular plane angle. In contrast to the posterior movement in the headgear group, anterior movement of Point A was noted in the mini-implant group. Conclusions: In both the anteroposterior and vertical directions, skeletal anchorage achieved better control than did the traditional headgear appliance during the treatment of maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Greater retraction of the maxillary incisor, less anchorage loss of the maxillary first molar, and the possibility of counterclockwise mandibular rotation all facilitated the correction of the Class II malocclusion.

Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Micro-Implant and J Hook Treatment for Adult Patients of Angle Class Ⅱ Division 1 Malocclusion with the Anterior of the Alveolar Vertical Macroplasia

Application of the microimplant treatment for Angle's Class Ⅱ Division ⅠMalocclusion with the vertical macroplasia of anterior of superior alveoli

Treatment of Angle classⅡmalocclusion with SUS2 appliance at early stage of permanent dentition

Clinical Efficacy of Counterclockwise Rotating the Functional Occlusal Plane Using Micro-Implant Anchorage.

[Comparison of the application of micro-implant screw support and flat guide plate in the treatment of excessive deep overbite of lower anterior teeth]

Craniomaxillofacial Changes Using High-Pull J-Hook Headgear and Mini-Implant Anchorage in Adolescents: A Structural Superimposition Method

The Vertical Control Effect of Mini-Implant Anchorage in High-Angle Adult Patients: a Comparison Study

Treatment of Severe Dental Crowding with Microscrew Anchorge

Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion

Craniofacial changes of high angle extraction cases treated with posterior vertical control through implant anchorage

Effects Of A Modified Activator: Activator Combined With J Hook Headgear In The Treatment Of Hyperdivergent Class Ii Malocclusion During The Late Mixed Teeth Period

Comparative Static Force Analysis of Molar Distalization by A Novel Sliding Rod Microscrew Implantation Jig and Direct Traction

Evaluation of the correction of the skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion by distalization of the whole mandible dentition with micro-implant anchorage

The Preliminary Clinical Study of Posterior Vertical Control of High Angle Non-Openbite Extraction Cases Through Microscrew Implant Anchorage

Comparison of Treatment Results Between Angle Class III Subgroup Patients Treated by Maxillary Protraction with Fixed Appliance and Fixed Appliance Only

Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage

Banded versus modified appliances for anchorage during maxillary protraction

[Treatment of Class II malocclusion using Herbst appliance with headgear and rapid palatal expansion and straight wire appliance with implant anchorage]

Microscrew anchorage in skeletal anterior open-bite treatment.

[Comparison of Treatment Results Between Implant Anchorage and Traditional Intraoral Anchorage in Patients with Maxillary Protrusion].

Efficacy and safety of micro-implant anchorage in Angle class II malocclusion orthodontic treatment: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis