Evaluation of anchorage loss of the upper first molar using two different retraction methods: A randomized clinical trial | ||||
| Egyptian Orthodontic Journal | ||||
| Volume 65, Issue 1, June 2024, Page 166-181 PDF (1.04 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/eos.2024.257662.1103 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Hamza Rajab Alshamam1; Abdullah Mohamed Agniah  2; Saif Alnaser Abdulla Alsullei* 3
| ||||
| 1BDS, MSc. Assistant lecture of orthodontics,Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University | ||||
| 2Orthodontic department,assistant director, dentistry collage,Sabratah university | ||||
| 3BDS, MSc in Orthodontics. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, AlAzhar University (Boys), Cairo, Egypt Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objective: the aim of the present study was to evaluate the anchorage loss of the molar using two different retraction methods. Subjects and methods: The current randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted on a total sample of 10 orthodontic patients (3 males and 7 females), a split- mouth design was performed. Two main groups, which group I included a procedure of canine retraction by using sectional arch in the conventional level of the brackets and tubes, while group II included a procedure of canine retraction through sectional arch in high position utilizing power arms attached to canine and molar tubes. A cone beam computed tomography had been used as observational method. Results: The results showed a significant increase in the anchorage loss in both of the groups, however no significant statistical difference between the two groups. Conclusion: It concluded that both techniques seem to have loss in the anchorage, however comparing both groups with each other’s seems to show no significant differences | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| anchorage loss; retraction; sliding mechanics; segmented arch mechanics | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 170 PDF Download: 143 |
||||
