White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage - a randomized clinical trial: Cephalometric results

Benson, P.E., Tinsley, D., O'Dwyer, J.J, Majumdar, A., Doyle, P. and Sandler, P.J. (2007) Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage - a randomized clinical trial: Cephalometric results. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 132 (5). pp. 606-615. ISSN 0889-5406

Full text available as:
[img] Text
bensonpe2_(Final).pdf

Download (702Kb)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the mid-palatal implant as a method of reinforcing anchorage during orthodontic treatment with that of conventional extra-oral anchorage.

DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, clinical trial Setting: Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust and the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 51 orthodontic patients between the ages of 12 and 39, with a class II division 1 malocclusion and ‘absolute anchorage’ requirements were randomly allocated to either receive a mid-palatal implant or headgear to reinforce orthodontic anchorage. The main outcome of the trial was to compare the mesial movement of the molars and incisors of the two treatment groups between T1 (start) and T2 (end of anchorage reinforcement) as measured from cephalometric radiographs.

RESULTS: The reproducibility of the measuring technique was acceptable. There were significant differences between the T1 and T2 measurements within the implant group for the position of the maxillary central incisor (p<0.001), position of the maxillary molar (p=0.009) and position of the mandibular molar (p<0.001). There were significant differences within the headgear group for the position of the mandibular central incisor (p<0.045), position of the maxillary molar (p=<0.001) and position of the mandibular molar (p<0.001). All the skeletal and dental points moved mesially more in the headgear group during treatment than in the implant group. These ranged from an average of 0.5mm more mesial for the mandibular permanent molar to 1.5mm more mesial for the maxillary molar and mandibular base. None of the treatment changes between the implant and headgear groups were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Mid-palatal implants are an acceptable technique for reinforcing anchorage in the orthodontic patient.

Item Type: Article
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: © 2007 Elsevier B.V. This is an author produced version of a paper published in American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics . Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
Institution: The University of Sheffield
Academic Units: The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) > School of Dentistry (Sheffield) > Department of Oral Health and Development (Sheffield)
Depositing User: Sherpa Assistant
Date Deposited: 10 Jan 2008 10:46
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2014 16:21
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040
Status: Published
Publisher: Mosby-Elsevier
Identification Number: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/3552

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item