Khandokar Shibly Shakil¹*, Helal Uddin², Nazia Mehanaz³, Ashish Kumar Banik⁴ and Arup Kumar Saha⁵

¹Medical Officer, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
²Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
³Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka
⁴Professor, Department of Dentistry, Sir Salimullah Medical College, Mitford, Dhaka
⁵Professor and Head, Department of Dental Public Health, City Dental College and Hospital, Dhaka

*Corresponding Author: Khandokar Shibly Shakil, Medical Officer, Department of Orthodontics, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Shahbagh, Dhaka.

Received: December 15, 2023; Published: December 27, 2023

Abstract

Aim: The study was conducted to evaluate the rate of canine retraction and anchorage loss between mini-implant versus mini implant supported micro-osteoperforation. This study will help to accelerate orthodontic treatment time and for better prognosis.

Materials and Method: Total sample size was 40, sample size was divided into four groups both maxilla and mandible. So, each quadrant got 10 sample, total patient was 10. Canine retraction rate and amount of molar anchorage loss were measured by with Electric Caliper and the lateral cephalogram (pre and post radiographs). After obtaining data, all the statistical analyses were performed using specialized statistical software (SPSS for Windows, Version 22.0, Chicago, 22, USA). The significant value was set at P<0.05.

Results: Significant difference of canine retraction rate and anchorage loss was found between implant side and micro-osteoperforation (MOP) side in maxilla and mandible. MOP side showed more retraction rate of orthodontic tooth movement and less anchorage loss than the control mini-implant side statistically.

Conclusion: Micro-osteoperforation increases the effectiveness and usefulness of orthodontic treatment. The utilization of low-cost, straightforward techniques for micro-osteoperforation has demonstrated notable benefits and acceleration. In canine retraction procedure anchorage has a major role for orthodontic outcome, if anchorage is not maintained properly, it will be difficult to make a stable result. So that mini-implant shows a great efficacy to maintain a good anchor unit to move the canine and micro-osteoperforation make it more faster and better.

Keywords:Mini-Implant; Micro -Osteoperforation (MOP); Canine Retraction; Anchorage

References

1. Profitt WR. “Contemporary orthodontics”. Third Edition (2000): 136.
2. Davis D., et al. “Comparison of rate of canine retraction and anchorage potential between mini-implant and conventional molar anchorage: An in vivo study”. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry3 (2018): 337.
3. DiBiase AT., et al. “Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics2 (2011): e111-e116.
4. Moresca R. “Orthodontic treatment time: can it be shortened?”. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 23 (2018): 90-105.
5. Attri S., et al. “Comparison of rate of tooth movement and pain perception during accelerated tooth movement associated with conventional fixed appliances with micro-osteoperforations–a randomised controlled trial”. Journal of Orthodontics4 (2018): 225-233.
6. Mavreas D and Athanasiou AE. “Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review”. The European Journal of Orthodontics4 (2008): 386-395.
7. Huang H., et al. “Accelerated orthodontic tooth movement: molecular mechanisms”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics5 (2014): 620-632.
8. Storey E. “Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement”. Australian Dental Journal 56 (1952): 11-18.
9. Chang HP and Tseng YC. “Miniscrew implant applications in contemporary orthodontics”. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences3 (2014): 111-115.
10. Kyung HM., et al. “Development of orthodontic micro-implants for intraoral anchorage”. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics: JCO6 (2003): 321-328.
11. Addanki P., et al. “Clinical and radiographic comparative evaluation of buccal and palatal corticotomy with buccal corticotomy in periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics with surgical bur”. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry2 (2017): 321.
12. Liou EJ., et al. “Surgery-first accelerated orthognathic surgery: orthodontic guidelines and setup for model surgery”. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery3 (2011): 771-780.
13. Kundi I. “Effect of Flapless Cortical Perforation on Canine Retraction Rate: A Randomized Clinical Trial”. International Medical Journal2 (2018).
14. Abdelhameed AN and Refai WM. “Evaluation of the effect of combined low energy laser application and micro-osteoperforations versus the effect of application of each technique separately on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement”. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 11 (2018): 2180.
15. Alkebsi A., et al. “Three-dimensional assessment of the effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement during canine retraction in adults with Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics6 (2018): 771-785.
16. Agrawal AA., et al. “Comparative CBCT analysis of the changes in buccal bone morphology after corticotomy and micro-osteoperforations assisted orthodontic treatment-Case series with a split mouth design”. The Saudi Dental Journal1 (2019): 58-65.
17. Alikhani M., et al. “Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics5 (2013): 639-648.
18. Sangsuwon C., et al. “Step-by-step guide for performing micro-osteoperforations”. Clinical Guide to Accelerated Orthodontics: With a Focus on Micro-Osteoperforations (2017): 99-116.
19. Aksakalli S., et al. “Accelerated tooth movement with orthodontic mini-screws”. Case reports in Dentistry (2017).
20. Aboalnaga AA., et al. “Effect of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of canine retraction: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial”. Progress in Orthodontics1 (2019): 1-9.
21. Köle H. “Surgical operations on the alveolar ridge to correct occlusal abnormalities”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 5 (1959): 515-529.
22. Okamoto A., et al. “Reduction of orthodontic tooth movement by experimentally induced periodontal inflammation in mice”. European Journal of Oral Sciences3 (2009): 238-247.
23. Thiruvenkatachari B., et al. “Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1 (2011): 30-35.
24. Costa A., et al. “Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report”. The International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery3 (1998): 201-209.
25. Abbassy MA., et al. “Long-term durability of orthodontic mini-implants”. Odontology 106 (2018): 208-214.
26. Nienkemper M., et al. “Orthodontic mini-implant stability at different insertion depths”. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie 4 (2016).
27. Kuroda S., et al. “Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics3 (2009): 302-309.

Citation

Citation: Khandokar Shibly Shakil., et al. “Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Loss between Mini-Implant and Mini-Implant with Micro -Osteoperforation".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 8.1 (2024): 103-108.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Khandokar Shibly Shakil., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.