Rohit Singh Jamwal, Umal H Doshi, Wasundhara A Bhad
{"title":"微型种植体与改良Nance腭扣矢状支抗保存的比较。","authors":"Rohit Singh Jamwal, Umal H Doshi, Wasundhara A Bhad","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the anchorage potential of mini-implants with modified Nance palatal buttons during simultaneous first and second maxillary molar distalization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mini-implants do not provide absolute anchorage when used indirectly. However, anchorage conservation is more efficient than modified Nance palatal buttons.</p>","PeriodicalId":89450,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics : the art and practice of dentofacial enhancement","volume":"13 1","pages":"e10-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of sagittal anchorage conservation of mini-implants and modified Nance palatal buttons.\",\"authors\":\"Rohit Singh Jamwal, Umal H Doshi, Wasundhara A Bhad\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the anchorage potential of mini-implants with modified Nance palatal buttons during simultaneous first and second maxillary molar distalization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mini-implants do not provide absolute anchorage when used indirectly. However, anchorage conservation is more efficient than modified Nance palatal buttons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthodontics : the art and practice of dentofacial enhancement\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"e10-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthodontics : the art and practice of dentofacial enhancement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics : the art and practice of dentofacial enhancement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较改良Nance腭钮扣微型种植体在上颌第一、第二磨牙同时拔除时的支抗电位。方法:采用超弹性Ni-Ti开圈弹簧放置微型种植体(1.4 x 10 mm)获得上颌磨牙远端间接支抗,并与远端喷射矫治器中改良的Nance腭扣支抗进行比较。19例青少年患者双侧放置矫治器。采用带导丝的侧位脑电图来区分左右两侧。所有的测量(角和线)都是从这些导丝获得的。结果:第一前磨牙支抗损失为13%,右侧Nance腭扣(远端喷射矫治器)为24.75%。在左侧,迷你种植体支持的Ni-Ti线圈弹簧矫治器的锚固损失为15.4%,Nance腭按钮(远端喷射矫治器)的锚固损失为23.9%。结论:微型种植体间接使用时不能提供绝对支抗。然而,锚固保护比改良的Nance腭扣更有效。
Comparison of sagittal anchorage conservation of mini-implants and modified Nance palatal buttons.
Objective: To compare the anchorage potential of mini-implants with modified Nance palatal buttons during simultaneous first and second maxillary molar distalization.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusion: Mini-implants do not provide absolute anchorage when used indirectly. However, anchorage conservation is more efficient than modified Nance palatal buttons.