SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:uu-16598"
 

Search: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:uu-16598" > Anchorage capacity ...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems : a randomized controlled trial.

Feldmann, Ingalill (author)
Uppsala universitet,Centrum för klinisk forskning, Gävleborg
Bondemark, Lars (author)
Malmö högskola,Odontologiska fakulteten (OD)
 (creator_code:org_t)
Elsevier BV, 2008
2008
English.
In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0889-5406 .- 1097-6752. ; 133:3, s. 339.e19-28
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • INTRODUCTION: Our aim in this investigation was to evaluate and compare orthodontic anchorage capacity of 4 anchorage systems during leveling/aligning and space closure after maxillary premolar extractions. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients (60 girls, 60 boys; mean age, 14.3 years; SD 1.73) were recruited and randomized into 4 anchorage systems: Onplant (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden), Orthosystem implant (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland), headgear, and transpalatal bar. The main outcome measures were cephalometric analysis of maxillary first molar and incisor movement, sagittal growth changes of the maxilla, and treatment time. The results were also analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The maxillary molars were stable during the leveling/aligning in the Onplant, Orthosystem implant, and headgear groups, but the transpalatal bar group had anchorage loss (mean, 1.0 mm; P <.001). During the space-closure phase, the molars were still stable in the Onplant and Orthosystem groups, whereas the headgear and transpalatal bar groups had anchorage loss (means, 1.6 and 1.0 mm, respectively; P <.001). Thus, the Onplant and the Orthosystem implant groups had significantly higher success rates for anchorage than did the headgear and transpalatal bar groups. Compared with the Orthosystem implant, there were more technical problems with the Onplant. CONCLUSIONS: If maximum anchorage is required, the Orthosystem implant is the system of choice.

Subject headings

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Odontologi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Dentistry (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Adolescent
Analysis of Variance
Cephalometry
Dental Implantation; Endosseous
Dental Implantation; Subperiosteal
Dental Implants
Female
Humans
Male
Malocclusion/therapy
Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures/instrumentation
Orthodontic Appliances
Orthodontics; Corrective/*instrumentation
Osseointegration
Palate; Hard/surgery
Statistics; Nonparametric
MEDICINE
MEDICIN

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Find more in SwePub

By the author/editor
Feldmann, Ingali ...
Bondemark, Lars
About the subject
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL AND HEAL ...
and Clinical Medicin ...
and Dentistry
Articles in the publication
American Journal ...
By the university
Uppsala University
Malmö University

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view