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 treatment outcomes after bilateral extractions of maxillary second molars or first premolars in patients with class II malocclusion: a retrospective study

Evaluation of the effect of extraction in comparison to distalization on the maxillary third molars in class II malocclusion: a retrospective study

[Preliminary Investigation of Lower Second Molar Extraction in Correction of Severe Skeletal Class III Malocclusion].

Extraction of maxillary first molars improves second and third molar inclinations in Class II Division 1 malocclusion

A retrospective comparative cephalometric evaluation of non-extraction multiloop edgewise archwire and bicuspid extraction therapies in anterior open bite treatment

Third molar angulation changes in Class II div I malocclusion subjects treated with extraction of four premolars: A retrospective study

The effect of first and second premolar extractions on third molars: A retrospective longitudinal study

Class Ⅲ Malocclusion Treated by Second Premolar Extraction

The second molar dilemma in orthodontics: to bond or not to bond?

Assessing position changes of impacted third molars in treatment of class II malocclusion with premolars extraction

Retrospective comparison of dental and skeletal effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion between Herbst and Xbow appliances

A prospective study of clinical outcomes related to third molar removal or retention

Effects of Two-Phase Treatment with Functional Appliances Followed by Extraction versus One-Phase Treatment with Extraction in Class II Growing Patients: A Case–Control Study

[Cephalometric Comparison of Soft-Tissue Morphology Between Extraction and Non-Extraction Orthodontic Treatment in Borderline Cases].

Dentoskeletal effects of functional appliances vs bimaxillary surgery in hyperdivergent Class II patients

Assessing the Efficacy of Early versus Late Orthodontic Intervention in the Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Comparative Analysis

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

The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study

Lower Second Molar Extraction in Correction of Severe Skeletal Class Iii Malocclusion

Stability of Molar Relationship after Orthodontic Treatment in Class Ⅱ Division 1 Malocclusions Treated by Extraction

Long-term profile attractiveness of patients with Class I and II malocclusion treated with and without extractions: A 35-year follow-up