Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.

BACKGROUND

Increased upper lip procumbency is commonly associated with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion with the major goal of reducing maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. The treatment plan usually includes extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by retraction of anterior teeth with maximum anchorage. Dental implants have been widely accepted as successful adjuncts for obtaining maximum anchorage in orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

50 subjects between the ages of 13 and 17 years having bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups. Both groups received treatment with 0.022″ MBT prescription preadjusted edgewise appliance system. In addition, subjects of Group 'I' received the Nance button and lingual arch as anchorage reinforcement in the upper and lower arches, respectively. Subjects of Group 'II' received self-drilling titanium OI for anchorage reinforcement.

RESULTS

Significant retraction was achieved in all cases with good vertical control. Anchor loss was observed in both groups. Anchor loss was much higher in Group I compared to Group II, and an intergroup comparison for anchor loss was highly significant.

CONCLUSION

Implants as anchorage, for en masse retraction, can be incorporated into orthodontic practice. The use of orthodontic implants for anchorage is a viable alternative to conventional molar anchorage.