Al-Sibaie Salma, Hajeer Mohammad Y
*Department of Orthodontics, University of Al-Baath Dental School, Hamah and.
*Department of Orthodontics, University of Al-Baath Dental School, Hamah and**Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus Dental School, Syria
Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
No randomized controlled trial has tried to compare treatment outcomes between the sliding en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth supported by mini-implants and the two-step sliding retraction technique employing conventional anchorage devices.
To evaluate skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes following anterior teeth retraction.
Parallel-groups randomized controlled trial on patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated at the University of Al-Baath Dental School in Hamah, Syria between July 2011 and May 2013.
One hundred and thirty-three patients with an upper dentoalveolar protrusion were evaluated and 80 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Randomization was performed using computer-generated tables; allocation was concealed using sequentially numbered opaque and sealed envelopes. Fifty-six participants were analysed (mean age 22.34 ± 4.56 years). They were randomly distributed into two groups with 28 patients in each group (1:1 allocation ratio).
Following first premolar extraction, space closure was accomplished using either the en-masse technique with mini-implants or the two-step technique with transpalatal arches (TPAs).
The antero-posterior displacements of upper incisal edges and upper first molars were measured on lateral cephalograms at three assessment times. Assessor blinding was employed.
A bodily retraction (-4.42 mm; P < 0.001) with a slight intrusion (-1.53 mm; P < 0.001) of the upper anterior teeth was achieved in the mini-implants group, whereas upper anterior teeth retraction was achieved by controlled palatal tipping in the TPA group.
When retracting anterior teeth in patients with moderate to severe protrusion, the en-masse retraction based on mini-implants anchorage gave superior results compared to the two-step retraction based on conventional anchorage in terms of speed, dental changes, anchorage loss, and aesthetic outcomes.
尚无随机对照试验比较微型种植体支抗滑动整体内收上前牙与采用传统支抗装置的两步滑动内收技术的治疗效果。
评估前牙内收后的骨骼、牙齿及软组织变化。
2011年7月至2013年5月在叙利亚哈马的巴阿思大学牙科学院进行的一项平行组随机对照试验，纳入安氏II类1分类错牙合患者。
对133例上颌牙槽前突患者进行评估，80例符合纳入标准。采用计算机生成的表格进行随机分组；使用连续编号的不透明密封信封进行分配隐藏。对56名参与者（平均年龄22.34±4.56岁）进行分析。他们被随机分为两组，每组28例（分配比例为1:1）。
拔除第一前磨牙后，使用微型种植体支抗整体内收技术或跨腭杆（TPA）两步法关闭间隙。
在三个评估时间点，通过头颅侧位片测量上前牙切缘和上第一磨牙的前后位移。评估者采用盲法。
微型种植体组上前牙实现了整体后移（-4.42 mm；P<0.001）及轻微压低（-1.53 mm；P<0.001），而TPA组上前牙通过控制腭向倾斜实现后移。
在中重度前突患者前牙内收时，基于微型种植体支抗的整体内收技术在速度、牙齿变化、支抗丧失及美学效果方面优于基于传统支抗的两步法内收技术。
