Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial

Effect of traditional anchorage techniques and new mini-implant methods on the positioning of maxillary incisors and molars in terms of anteroposterior, vertical and angular changes is of interest. Hence, eighteen patients, with either Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion or Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary protrusion, were split into two groups: Group 1, which used mini-implants and Group 2, which relied on conventional anchorage. Space was closed within 12-18 months and the lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms (OPGs) were taken at the start (T1) and after space closure (T2). In Group 1, significant movement of the maxillary first molars in both a distal and intruding direction into the bone was observed. Meanwhile, the molars in Group 2 were shifted mesially and extruded. Molar tipping was more stable in Group 1. Mini-implant anchorage proved more efficient in controlling molar movement, retraction and anterior teeth tipping.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioinformation
Published
2025-04-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300210669
Primary Topic
dental development and anomalies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial

Gangesh Bahadur Singh, Virendra Vadher, Shalabh Baxi, Shweta Singh et al.
Bioinformation
dental development and anomalies
article

Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial

Gangesh Bahadur Singh, Virendra Vadher, Shalabh Baxi, Shweta Singh, Nirupama Rayast, Barapatre Barapatre
article en

Abstract

Effect of traditional anchorage techniques and new mini-implant methods on the positioning of maxillary incisors and molars in terms of anteroposterior, vertical and angular changes is of interest. Hence, eighteen patients, with either Angle Class II Division 1 malocclusion or Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary protrusion, were split into two groups: Group 1, which used mini-implants and Group 2, which relied on conventional anchorage. Space was closed within 12-18 months and the lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms (OPGs) were taken at the start (T1) and after space closure (T2). In Group 1, significant movement of the maxillary first molars in both a distal and intruding direction into the bone was observed. Meanwhile, the molars in Group 2 were shifted mesially and extruded. Molar tipping was more stable in Group 1. Mini-implant anchorage proved more efficient in controlling molar movement, retraction and anterior teeth tipping.

BioinformationVol. 21(04)
Government Dental College and Hospital (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
dental development and anomalies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial — Gangesh Bahadur Singh, Virendra Vadher, et al. · Bioinformation (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS