Korean J Orthod.  2019 Sep;49(5):279-285. 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.5.279.

Effectiveness of anchorage with temporary anchorage devices during anterior maxillary tooth retraction: A randomized clinical trial

• Barthélemi S
• Desoutter
• Souaré F
• Cuisinier

• KMID: 2458616
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.5.279

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the efficiency of anchorage provided by temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in maxillary bicuspid extraction cases during retraction of the anterior teeth using a fixed appliance.
METHODS
Patients aged 12 to 50 years with malocclusion for which bilateral first or second maxillary bicuspid extractions were indicated were included in the study and randomly allocated to the TAD or control groups. Retraction of the anterior teeth was achieved using skeletal anchorage in the TAD group and conventional dental anchorage in the control group. A computed tomography (CT) scan was performed after alignment of teeth, and a second CT scan was performed at the end of extraction space closure in both groups. A three-dimensional superimposition was performed to visualize and quantify the maxillary first molar movement during the retraction phase, which was the primary outcome, and the stability of TAD movement, which served as the secondary outcome.
RESULTS
Thirty-four patients (17 in each group) underwent the final analysis. The two groups showed a significant difference in the movement of the first maxillary molars, with less significant anchorage loss in the TAD group than that in the control group. In addition, TAD movement showed only a slight mesial movement on the labial side. On the palatal side, the mesial TAD movement was greater.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with conventional dental anchorage, TADs can be considered an efficient source of anchorage during retraction of maxillary anterior teeth. TADs remain stable when correctly placed in the bone during the anterior tooth retraction phase.

Keyword

Anchorage; Randomized clinical trial; Temporary anchorage devices; En masse retraction

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Humans
Malocclusion
Molar
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Tooth*

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 A, Intra-oral photograph of temporary anchorage device (TAD) insertion on the labial side with an elastomeric chain for the en masse retraction of the six anterior teeth. B, Intra-oral view of TAD insertion on the palatal side. C, Computed tomography (CT) scan performed on the day of TAD insertion. D, CT scan performed after extraction space closure.

Reference

1. Gainsforth BL, Higley LB. A study of orthodontic anchorage possibilities in basal bone. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1945; 31:406–417.

2. Linkow LI. The endosseous blade implant and its use in orthodontics. Int J Orthod. 1969; 7:149–154.

3. Wehrbein H, Glatzmaier J, Mundwiller U, Diedrich P. The orthosystem--a new implant system for orthodontic anchorage in the palate. J Orofac Orthop. 1996; 57:142–153.

4. Melsen B, Petersen JK, Costa A. Zygoma ligatures: an alternative form of maxillary anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1998; 32:154–158.

5. Park HS. The skeletal cortical anchorage using titanium microscrew implants. Korean J Orthod. 1999; 29:699–706.

6. Lee JS, Park HS, Kyung HM. Micro-implant anchorage for lingual treatment of a skeletal class II malocclusion. J Clin Orthod. 2001; 35:643–647. quiz 620.

7. Kyung HM, Park HS, Bae SM, Sung JH, Kim IB. Development of orthodontic micro-implants for intraoral anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2003; 37:321–328. quiz 314.

8. Maino BG, Bednar J, Pagin P, Mura P. The spider screw for skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2003; 37:90–97.

9. Park HS, Lee SK, Kwon OW. Group distal movement of teeth using microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75:602–609.

10. Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage: a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:606–615.

11. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:18–29.e1.

12. Garfinkle JS, Cunningham LL Jr, Beeman CS, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kim MO. Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in premolar extraction therapy in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:642–653.

13. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:339–352.

14. Sharma M, Sharma V, Khanna B. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial. J Orthod. 2012; 39:102–110.

15. Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O'Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: a 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146:10–20.

16. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:223–225.

17. Wu TY, Kuang SH, Wu CH. Factors associated with the stability of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage: a study of 414 samples in Taiwan. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67:1595–1599.

18. Dalessandri D, Salgarello S, Dalessandri M, Lazzaroni E, Piancino M, Paganelli C, et al. Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a meta-analysis (n > 50). Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36:303–313.

19. Hsieh YD, Su CM, Yang YH, Fu E, Chen HL, Kung S. Evaluation on the movement of endosseous titanium implants under continuous orthodontic forces: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19:618–623.

20. Treil J, Casteigt J, Borianne P, Madrid C, Jaeger M, de Bonnecaze P. [Thearchitectural balance of the face: a 3D cephalometric concept]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 1999; 100:111–122. French.

21. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36:687–695.

22. Liu H, Lv T, Wang NN, Zhao F, Wang KT, Liu DX. Drift characteristics of miniscrews and molars for anchorage under orthodontic force: 3-dimensional computed tomography registration evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139:e83–e89.

23. Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson PE, Skeggs RM, O'Brien KD. Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (8):CD005098.

24. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36:275–283.

25. Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Łyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during enmasse retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151:440–455.

26. Rizk MZ, Mohammed H, Ismael O, Bearn DR. Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 2018; 18:41.

27. Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C, Wilmes B, Wolf M, Drescher D. Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2018; 4:35.

28. Pervin S, Rolland S, Taylor G. En masse versus two-step retraction of the anterior segment. Evid Based Dent. 2018; 19:111–112.

29. Alharbi F, Almuzian M, Bearn D. Anchorage effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrews compared to headgear and transpalatal arches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2019; 77:88–98.

30. Schätzle M, Männchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:1351–1359.

31. Aly SA, Alyan D, Fayed MS, Alhammadi MS, Mostafa YA. Success rates and factors associated with failure of temporary anchorage devices: a prospective clinical trial. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018; 9:e12331.

32. Liou EJ, Pai BC, Lin JC. Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126:42–47.

33. Büchter A, Wiechmann D, Gaertner C, Hendrik M, Vogeler M, Wiesmann HP, et al. Load-related bone modelling at the interface of orthodontic microimplants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17:714–722.