Article Sidebar

pdf
Date Published: 21/04/2025
Abstract Views: 67
Views pdf: 33
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v548i3.13693
Issue
Vol. 548 No. 3 (2025)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Võ Thị Thúy, H., & Trịnh Đình, H. (2025). CHANGES IN CEPHALOMETRIC INDICES IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING TOOTH EXTRACTION WITH MINISCREW ANCHORAGE FOR EN-MASSE RETRACTION OF ANTERIOR TEETH. Vietnam Medical Journal, 548(3). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v548i3.13693

CHANGES IN CEPHALOMETRIC INDICES IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING TOOTH EXTRACTION WITH MINISCREW ANCHORAGE FOR EN-MASSE RETRACTION OF ANTERIOR TEETH

Hồng Võ Thị Thúy, Hải Trịnh Đình

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate changes in cephalometric indices in patients undergoing premolar extraction with maximum anchorage. Materials: A total of 90 patients with malocclusion who required first premolar extraction for anterior teeth retraction and maximum anchorage at the National Hospital of Odonto-Stomatology from 2010 to 2013. Methods: An uncontrolled clinical trial comparing pre- and post-treatment outcomes. Results: Skeletal indices across all three malocclusion types changed minimally and were not statistically significant, while statistically significant changes were observed in dental indices. Among 22 patients with Class I malocclusion, the U1-MP angle was -7.40±3.89, the L1-MP angle was -3.95±6.07, the nasolabial angle was 6.00±7.30, and the overjet was -1.73±2.23. Among 64 patients with Class II malocclusion, changes in the U1-MP angle were -5.58±5.76, the L1-MP angle was -3.34±3.86, the interincisal angle was 10.12±7.03, the nasolabial angle was 2.26±3.92, and the overjet was -2.42±2.62. Conclusions: Cephalometric analysis indicated minimal skeletal changes, with significant alterations in dental indices, particularly a more obtuse nasolabial angle and a greater reduction in the upper incisor axis, demonstrating the effectiveness of MI in retracting the anterior teeth.

Article Details

Keywords

Cephalometrics, Miniimplant, En-masse retraction of anterior teeth

References

1. Graber T.M., Swain B.F. (1985), Othodontics: Current principles and techniques, Mosby, pp. 4-10, 501-523, 544, 880-898.
2. Proffit W.R., Henry W. Fields., David M. Sarver. (2007), Contemporary orthodontics, Mosby, pp. 2-11, 28-71, 80-84, 201-219, 234-269, 272-276, 287-299, 511-548.
3. Ravindra Nanda (2005), Biomechanics and Esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics, Mosby, pp. 38-73.
4. Sung JH, Kyung HM, Bae SM, Park HS, Kwon OW, McNamara J (2006), Microimplants in orthodontics, Dentos, pp. 7-32, 39-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
5. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R (2008), “Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage”, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, Vol. 134, pp. 30-35.
6. Madhur Upadhyay, Sumit Yadav, K Nagaraj, Sameer Patil (2008), “Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial”, Vol 134 (1), pp. 18-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo. 2007.03.025.