A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control

Amirparviz R. Davoody, Laura Posada, Achint Utreja, Nandakumar Janakiraman, William P. Neace, Flavio Uribe, Ravindra Nanda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of anchorage control between differential moments mechanics and temporary anchorage devices in a clinical trial. Forty-six patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars were allocated into 2 treatment groups. The differential moments group (G1) received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire for the retraction of the incisors. The TAD group (G2) received one miniscrew placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars with a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring connecting the miniscrew to a hook placed in the archwire between the lateral incisor and canine. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after incisor retraction (T2). The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction was calculated and intragroup and intergroup changes in upper lip, maxillary incisor and molar position were analyzed by paired and independent t-tests. Twenty-eight patients were analyzed after 18 patients did not receive the intervention, were lost to follow-up, or discontinued treatment. The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction in G1 was 0.44 and in G2 was-0.11, which was significantly different. There was a statistically significant change in upper lip from T1 to T2 but no difference between the two groups. Moreover, there was a significant distal molar tipping and lingual incisor tipping in G2. There is a significant difference in the amount of anchorage control using differential moments mechanics compared to TADs. Although statistically significant retraction of upper lip was observed in both groups, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)568-576
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Orthodontics
Volume35
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Incisor
Prospective Studies
Lip
Bicuspid
Mechanics
Canidae
Agaricales
Lost to Follow-Up
Tongue
Clinical Trials
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics
nitinol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Davoody, A. R., Posada, L., Utreja, A., Janakiraman, N., Neace, W. P., Uribe, F., & Nanda, R. (2013). A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. European Journal of Orthodontics, 35(5), 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs046

A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. / Davoody, Amirparviz R.; Posada, Laura; Utreja, Achint; Janakiraman, Nandakumar; Neace, William P.; Uribe, Flavio; Nanda, Ravindra.

In: European Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 35, No. 5, 10.2013, p. 568-576.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Davoody, AR, Posada, L, Utreja, A, Janakiraman, N, Neace, WP, Uribe, F & Nanda, R 2013, 'A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control', European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 568-576. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs046
Davoody, Amirparviz R. ; Posada, Laura ; Utreja, Achint ; Janakiraman, Nandakumar ; Neace, William P. ; Uribe, Flavio ; Nanda, Ravindra. / A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. In: European Journal of Orthodontics. 2013 ; Vol. 35, No. 5. pp. 568-576.
@article{815a2e48371d4a6a8766fd7ce8eae4c4,
title = "A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of anchorage control between differential moments mechanics and temporary anchorage devices in a clinical trial. Forty-six patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars were allocated into 2 treatment groups. The differential moments group (G1) received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire for the retraction of the incisors. The TAD group (G2) received one miniscrew placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars with a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring connecting the miniscrew to a hook placed in the archwire between the lateral incisor and canine. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after incisor retraction (T2). The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction was calculated and intragroup and intergroup changes in upper lip, maxillary incisor and molar position were analyzed by paired and independent t-tests. Twenty-eight patients were analyzed after 18 patients did not receive the intervention, were lost to follow-up, or discontinued treatment. The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction in G1 was 0.44 and in G2 was-0.11, which was significantly different. There was a statistically significant change in upper lip from T1 to T2 but no difference between the two groups. Moreover, there was a significant distal molar tipping and lingual incisor tipping in G2. There is a significant difference in the amount of anchorage control using differential moments mechanics compared to TADs. Although statistically significant retraction of upper lip was observed in both groups, there was no significant difference between the two groups.",
author = "Davoody, {Amirparviz R.} and Laura Posada and Achint Utreja and Nandakumar Janakiraman and Neace, {William P.} and Flavio Uribe and Ravindra Nanda",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1093/ejo/cjs046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "568--576",
journal = "European Journal of Orthodontics",
issn = "0141-5387",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control

AU - Davoody, Amirparviz R.

AU - Posada, Laura

AU - Utreja, Achint

AU - Janakiraman, Nandakumar

AU - Neace, William P.

AU - Uribe, Flavio

AU - Nanda, Ravindra

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of anchorage control between differential moments mechanics and temporary anchorage devices in a clinical trial. Forty-six patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars were allocated into 2 treatment groups. The differential moments group (G1) received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire for the retraction of the incisors. The TAD group (G2) received one miniscrew placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars with a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring connecting the miniscrew to a hook placed in the archwire between the lateral incisor and canine. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after incisor retraction (T2). The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction was calculated and intragroup and intergroup changes in upper lip, maxillary incisor and molar position were analyzed by paired and independent t-tests. Twenty-eight patients were analyzed after 18 patients did not receive the intervention, were lost to follow-up, or discontinued treatment. The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction in G1 was 0.44 and in G2 was-0.11, which was significantly different. There was a statistically significant change in upper lip from T1 to T2 but no difference between the two groups. Moreover, there was a significant distal molar tipping and lingual incisor tipping in G2. There is a significant difference in the amount of anchorage control using differential moments mechanics compared to TADs. Although statistically significant retraction of upper lip was observed in both groups, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

AB - The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of anchorage control between differential moments mechanics and temporary anchorage devices in a clinical trial. Forty-six patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars were allocated into 2 treatment groups. The differential moments group (G1) received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire for the retraction of the incisors. The TAD group (G2) received one miniscrew placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars with a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring connecting the miniscrew to a hook placed in the archwire between the lateral incisor and canine. Lateral cephalograms were taken before (T1) and after incisor retraction (T2). The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction was calculated and intragroup and intergroup changes in upper lip, maxillary incisor and molar position were analyzed by paired and independent t-tests. Twenty-eight patients were analyzed after 18 patients did not receive the intervention, were lost to follow-up, or discontinued treatment. The ratio of molar protraction to incisor retraction in G1 was 0.44 and in G2 was-0.11, which was significantly different. There was a statistically significant change in upper lip from T1 to T2 but no difference between the two groups. Moreover, there was a significant distal molar tipping and lingual incisor tipping in G2. There is a significant difference in the amount of anchorage control using differential moments mechanics compared to TADs. Although statistically significant retraction of upper lip was observed in both groups, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883500155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883500155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ejo/cjs046

DO - 10.1093/ejo/cjs046

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 568

EP - 576

JO - European Journal of Orthodontics

JF - European Journal of Orthodontics

SN - 0141-5387

IS - 5

ER -