A comparative study of anchorage in bioprogressive versus standard edgewise treatment in Class II correction with intermaxillary elastic force

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cortical anchorage, by comparing two groups of patients with Class II malocclusions that were treated successfully with Class II elastics. One group of 30 previously treated patients had a utility arch used to set up cortical anchorage in the lower arch before Class II elastic wear; the second group was treated with standard edgewise mechanics where anchorage preparation consisted of full appliances, a well-aligned mandibular arch, and a rectangular arch wire. The groups were selected according to age, sex, and the amount of Class II elastic usage. Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were used to generate 32 variables. A Student’s t test was used to evaluate treatment change between the groups and revealed that there were no statistically significant differences. Lower molar teeth extruded and moved mesially equally in both groups. Although cortical anchorage did not retard lower molar movement, it was no less effective in controlling molar movement with a partial appliance than the fully banded standard edgewise appliance.