2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.08.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Atypical orthodontic extraction pattern managed by differential en-masse retraction against a temporary skeletal anchorage device in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(8 reference statements)
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10,30 The longer head part reduces the risk of screw loosening because of the surface treatment of the screw, thereby enhancing osseointegration. Mini-implants can be used as a preliminary restorative aid when the morphology of the alveolar bone is not ideal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,30 The longer head part reduces the risk of screw loosening because of the surface treatment of the screw, thereby enhancing osseointegration. Mini-implants can be used as a preliminary restorative aid when the morphology of the alveolar bone is not ideal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Chung et al this could have been prevented by using different force levels on right and left sides. 5 However, in present case midline was later matched using asymmetric Class II elastics-double on right side and single on left side. After en masse retraction of lower anterior segment mandibular second premolar was distalized to bring it in the center of first molar space so that it can be used as abutment for first molar prosthesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unilateral problems are generally more difficult to treat than bilateral problems. The use of SA provides either stabilization of the side that does not need correction or selective force application to the side to be corrected …”
Section: Vertical Planementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of SA provides either stabilization of the side that does not need correction or selective force application to the side to be corrected. [35][36][37] Based on the current evidence, we have developed guidelines where dental movement assisted by SA is evaluated under three criteria: (1) whether the desired movement is possible, (2) whether it is reasonable to produce this direction of tooth movement, and (3) whether the result will be stable. Information regarding long-term stability is scarce, and further research is needed in order to adopt an evidence-based approach during treatment planning phase (see table II in Current Status of Skeletal Anchorage Dental Applications in Orthodontics Part I).…”
Section: Transversal Planementioning
confidence: 99%