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.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Miniscrew Implants and Transpalatal Arch Anchorage in Adults with Bimaxillary Dentoalveolar Protrusion

Clinical Effects of Orthodontics Assisted with Anchorage by Combining Microscrew Implants and Transpalatal Arch

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

Comparison of resin-bonded transpalatal arch and band-soldered transpalatal arch on reinforcing the first molar anchorage

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

Study on the treatment of Angle class I bimaxillary protrusion malocclusion with micro implant anchorage.

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes associated with miniscrew anchorage in customized lingual orthodontics

Treating High Angle Bimaxillary Protrusion with Three Kinds of Extraction Method: A Clinical Study

[Comparison of Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Maxillary Dentoalveolar Protrusion by Applying Different Anchorage Methods: a Three-Dimensional Model Study].

Comparison of Two Treatment Method for Maxillary Incisors Intrusion

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

Clinical evaluation of the treatment of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion with physiological anchorage control technique

[Comparison of clear aligners and customized lingual appliance for bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: a retrospective study].

Morphologic Evaluation of Root Resorption after Miniscrew Assisted En Mass Retraction in Adult Bialveolar Protrusion Patients

A Comparative Study Between Transpalatal Arch of Mesially Bended and Transpalatal Arch of Distally Bended Ω for Reinforcing Anchorage

A retrospective study of adults with severe bimaxillary protrusion treated with customized lingual orthodontics in

Treatment Effects of Distal Movement of Lower Arch with Miniscrews in the Retromolar Area Compared with Miniscrews in the Posterior Area of the Maxillary

Comparison of posttreatment stability after total mandibular arch distalization with mini-implants and mandibular setback surgery

[Combined surgical and orthodontic treatment of severe maxillary anterior teeth and dentoalveolar bone protrusion].

Intrusion of Overerupted Upper Posterior Teeth with Modified Transpalatal Arch

The comparative study of the treatment of Angle class Ⅱ division 1 malocclusion with micro-implant anchorage and headgear anchorage technique