Jamwal Rohit Singh, Doshi Umal H, Bhad Wasundhara A
King Khalid Hospital and Prince Sultan Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Orthodontics (Chic.). 2012;13(1):e10-9.
To compare the anchorage potential of mini-implants with modified Nance palatal buttons during simultaneous first and second maxillary molar distalization.
Mini-implants (1.4 x 10 mm) placed to obtain indirect anchorage for maxillary molar distalization using a superelastic Ni-Ti open coil spring were compared with anchorage derived from a modified Nance palatal button incorporated in a distal jet appliance. Appliances were placed bilaterally in 19 adolescent patients. Lateral cephalograms with guide wires to differentiate the right from left sides were used for evaluation. All measurements (angular and linear) were obtained from these guide wires.
Anchorage loss at the first premolar was 13% with mini-implant-supported Ni-Ti coil spring appliances and 24.75% with the Nance palatal button (distal jet appliance) on the right side. On the left side, anchorage loss was 15.4% with mini-implant-supported Ni-Ti coil spring appliances and 23.9% with the Nance palatal button (distal jet appliance).
Mini-implants do not provide absolute anchorage when used indirectly. However, anchorage conservation is more efficient than modified Nance palatal buttons.
比较微型种植体与改良Nance腭托在同时进行上颌第一和第二磨牙远移时的支抗潜力。
将使用超弹性镍钛开圈弹簧放置以获得上颌磨牙远移间接支抗的微型种植体（1.4×10 mm）与包含在远移矫治器中的改良Nance腭托产生的支抗进行比较。矫治器双侧放置于19例青少年患者。使用带有导丝以区分左右侧的头颅侧位片进行评估。所有测量（角度和线性）均从这些导丝获得。
右侧，微型种植体支持的镍钛弹簧矫治器在第一前磨牙处的支抗丧失为13%，Nance腭托（远移矫治器）为24.75%。左侧，微型种植体支持的镍钛弹簧矫治器的支抗丧失为15.4%，Nance腭托（远移矫治器）为23.9%。
微型种植体间接使用时不能提供绝对支抗。然而，保留支抗比改良Nance腭托更有效。
