Implant versus Nance holding arch anchorage during maxillary canine retraction

Fouda, Maher A; Al-Belasy, Fouad; Abd El Nabi, Shaza H; Shamaa, Marwa S

doi:10.21608/eos.2010.78789

Implant versus Nance holding arch anchorage during maxillary canine retraction

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

² Department of Oral surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

³ Department of Orthodontics Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

10.21608/eos.2010.78789

Abstract

The aim of the present work is to determine the anchorage potential of titanium microimplant for maxillary canine retraction and to measure the anchorage loss using microscrew implants compared to Nance holding arch as intraoral anchorage during maxillary canine retraction in Angle's class I crowding. Sample of this study consisted of 10 females ranging in age from 18-24 years. 5 received micro-screw implants as a mean of anchorage and the remaining 5 received conventional molar anchorage as Nance holding arch. The molar anchorage loss was determined in both the implant anchored cases and the molar anchored cases by superimposing the lateral cephalometric tracings before and after canine retraction along the palatal plane registered at the anterior nasal spine. The horizontal distances from the pterygoid vertical to the distal surfaces of the first molars were calculated to measure the anchorage loss. In present study all implants remained stable throughout the treatment period and no damage was registered in any implant under the condition of implant loading. Also, no implant deformation was detected in any implant., anchorage loss was detected more significantly (P < .0007) in patients with intraoral anchorage through the Nance holding arch compared to patients with anchorage through orthodontic mini-implants both on the right and left side. In the Nance group the mean anchorage loss was 1.4mm (±0.418) on the right side and 1.42 mm (±0.437) on the left side. On the other hand no molar rotation was detected in the present study either by using the Nance holding arch or the microimplant. So, this study is a further prove of the beneficial use of microimplants as a good anchorage method with profound control of molar rotation.

Keywords