• Users Online: 352
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 188-193

Assessment of anchorage loss with conventional versus contemporary method of intraoral anchorage: A prospective clinical study

1 Dental Centre, Jaipur, India
2 Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Air Force Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
4 Naval Dental Centre, Visakhapatna, India
5 Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India

Correspondence Address:
Rajneesh Kumar Joshi
Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune
Sanjeev Datana
Department of Dental Surgery and Oral Health Sciences, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune - 411 040, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_55_21

Rights and Permissions

Background: Anchorage control is a major concern in the design of orthodontic treatment planning. Even the best known methods to reinforce the anchorage result in taxing of the anchor unit. Control of anchorage is primarily important in “critical anchorage” situations where no anchor loss is acceptable. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) offer to solve one of our greatest dilemmas of “anchorage control” and have been compared in this study with conventional intraoral anchorage in situ. Materials and Methods: The study involved a total of 60 subjects; 26 males and 34 females with a mean age of 16.7 years having Angle's Class I malocclusion with severe crowding who were divided randomly into two groups; Group A - TADs and Group B - Nance palatal button (NPB) for anchorage preparation. Amount of anchor loss was determined at maxillary first molar using the pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Results: The mean range of difference between pre- and post-values of the maxillary molar position in Group A was 0.02–0.09 mm (P = 0.005) and in Group B was 1.18–1.26 mm (P = 0.0001). Hence, the anchorage loss during the initial phase of leveling and alignment was approximately 1.22 mm with the use of NPB and minimal when TADs were placed and engaged before leveling and alignment. Conclusion: Minimal mesial movement of the maxillary first molars was observed when TADs were placed and engaged before leveling and alignment, thus proving their efficacy in maximum anchorage situations.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded95    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal