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 Results Between Implant Anchorage and Traditional Intraoral Anchorage in Patients with Maxillary Protrusion].

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

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

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

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

Three-dimensional Evaluation of Maxillary Tooth Movement in Extraction Patients with Three Different Miniscrew Anchorage Systems: a Randomized Controlled Trial

[Stability of Upper Molars with the Application of Implant Anchorage].

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Control Of Maxillary Anchorage With 2 Retraction Techniques Editor'S Comment

Preliminary study of the anchorage effect of a modified transpalatal arch-tongue anchorage pad

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of maxillary protraction with labiolingual arches and implants

Comparison Of Orthodontic Tooth Movement Between Adolescents And Adults Based On Implant Superimposition

A comparative study on anterior teeth retraction-related hard and soft tissue changes with physiologic anchorage control technique

Comparison of achieved and predicted tooth movement of maxillary first molars and central incisors: First premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign .

Comparison of Achieved and Predicted Crown Movement in Adults after 4 First Premolar Extraction Treatment with Invisalign

Intrusion of Overerupted Upper Posterior Teeth with Modified Transpalatal Arch

Periodontal effect of augmented corticotomy-assisted orthodontics versus conventional orthodontics in treatment of adult patients with bialveolar protrusion

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

Vertical dimensional change of upper molars in extraction orthodontic treatment with micro-screw anchorage

Displacement in root apex and changes in incisor inclination affect alveolar bone remodeling in adult bimaxillary protrusion patients: a retrospective study

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