Abstract
BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to compare two different anchorage systems efficiency to disinclude impacted maxillary canines using as evaluation tool superimposed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCTs).MethodsThe study has been conducted with two parallel groups with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group test received treatment using as anchorage a miniscrew, control group was treated using an anchorage unit a trans palatal arch (TPA). Both groups received a calibrated traction force of 50 g. CBCT before treatment and 3 months after traction were superimposed and canine tip and root movement were evaluated in mm/month ratio.ResultsNo differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan. Twenty-two patients (12 female, 10 male, mean age:13.4 years) undergoing orthodontic treatment for impacted maxillary canines were recruited for this study. No differences were observed between groups for apex displacement, tip displacement and observation timespan.ConclusionsThe present pilot study provided no evidence that indirect anchorage on miniscrews could make canine disimpaction faster than anchorage on a TPA.An apex root movement of 0.4–0.8 mm per month was found, while average canine tip movement ranged between 1.08 mm and 1.96 mm per month.No miniscrews failures were observed.Trial registrationThe study reports the preliminary results of the randomized clinical trial registered at www.register.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01717417).
Highlights
The aim of the present study was to compare two different anchorage systems efficiency to disinclude impacted maxillary canines using as evaluation tool superimposed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCTs)
Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs), and cantilevers with a Ttitanium Molybdenum Alloy (TMA) sectional represent alternative methods for anchoring the system: a TAD is a mini screw temporarily fixed to the bone for the purpose of enhancing orthodontic movement, either by supporting the reactive unit or by obviating the need for it, and is subsequently removed after use [2]
Study design The present study reports the preliminary results of the randomized clinical trial registered at www.register. clinicaltrials.gov with registration number XXXXXXXXX
Summary
The aim of the present study was to compare two different anchorage systems efficiency to disinclude impacted maxillary canines using as evaluation tool superimposed Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCTs). The absence of the permanent canine in the arch, after the normal eruption timing, leads clinicians to suspect canine impaction and that has to be confirmed by a clinical evaluation of the patient and a radiographic assessment. Guided orthodontic eruption of palatally impacted canines may lead to prolonged treatment, and potential negative consequences, such as the propensity for greater root resorption and poor patient compliance [3]. The intraosseous orthodontic biomechanics for traction of impacted canines can be achieved in several ways, but the anchorage method plays a crucial role in the success and guided control of the direction of canine eruption. In a recent study investigating anchorage loss when using a conventional TPA in comparison to a mini-screw implant, minimal mesial movement of the maxillary first molars was observed when mini-screw implants were placed and passively engaged prior to leveling and aligning. The loss of anchorage was evaluated during maxillary canine retraction with fixed appliances [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
