Relative anchorage loss under reciprocal anchorage in mandibular premolar extraction cases treated with clear aligners

22Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: To compare mandibular relative anchorage loss (RAL) under reciprocal anchorage between first and second premolar extraction cases in bimaxillary protrusion mild crowding cases treated using clear aligner therapy (CAT). Materials and Methods: Adult patients who met the following criteria were included: treated using CAT with bilateral mandibular premolar extractions and space closure using intra-arch reciprocal anchorage. RAL was defined as the percent molar mesial movement relative to the sum of molar mesial plus canine distal movement. Movements of the mandibular central incisor (L1), canine (L3), and first molar (L6) were measured based on superimposition of the pre- and post-treatment dentition and jaw models. Results: Among the 60 mandibular extraction quadrants, 38 had lower first premolar (L4) and 22 had lower second premolar (L5) extracted. L6 mesial movement was 2.01 6 1.11 mm with RAL of 25% in the L4 extraction group vs 3.25 6 1.19 mm with RAL of 40% in the L5 extraction group (P, .001). Tooth movement efficacy was 43% for L1 occlusogingival movement, 75% for L1 buccolingual inclination, 60% for L3 occlusogingival movement, and 53% for L3 mesiodistal angulation. L1 had unwanted extrusion and lingual crown torquing whereas L3 had unwanted extrusion and distal crown tipping, on which the power ridges or attachments had little preventive effect. Conclusions: The average mandibular reciprocal RAL is 25% or 40% for extraction of L4 or L5, respectively, in CAT cases. A RAL-based treatment planning workflow is proposed for CAT extraction cases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tang, Z., Chen, W., Mei, L., Abdulghani, E. A., Zhao, Z., & Li, Y. (2023). Relative anchorage loss under reciprocal anchorage in mandibular premolar extraction cases treated with clear aligners. Angle Orthodontist, 93(4), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.2319/102222-727.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free