Subperiosteal Anchorage in Orthodontics: A Narrative Review

Serafin, Marco; Maspero, Cinzia; Bocchieri, Salvatore; Fastuca, Rosamaria; Caprioglio, Alberto

doi:10.3390/app11188376

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main differences for the NonEx ratios were based on the fact that MonomaxEx treatments needed to be performed in the LT group about 12 times more often than in the ET group. This could, of course, be compensated for by upper arch distalization with the aid of skeletal anchorage instead [ 30 ]. However, this is a very costly alternative [ 31 , 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

Männchen¹,

Serafin

Fastuca

et al. 2022

Children

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group (n = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.2 years), with first premolars not in contact and the second deciduous lower molars preserved, was compared to the LT group (n = 288, 137 M, 151 F, mean age 12.4 ± 1.5 years). The ET group was first treated with headgears, growth guide appliances, or Teuscher activators and, in borderline crowding cases, with lower space maintenance by a lingual arch, lip bumper, or fixed utility arch. The LT group and the second phase of ET were treated with full fixed appliances including intermaxillary forces such as Class II elastics or noncompliance devices; headgear and a growth guide appliance were also used. Cephalograms and plaster models were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2) to calculate cephalometric changes and space balance discrepancies. The differences between T1 and T2 were analyzed by a t-test for normally distributed data and by the Mann–Whitney Test for nonnormally distributed data at a level of p < 0.05. The groups were defined as statistically homogeneous at T1. A statistical analysis showed that the ET group (mean treatment time 35.3 ± 13.3 months) was significantly associated with a 22.2% lower extraction rate, 15.9% less need for a full fixed appliance, and more than 5° less incisor proclination in the nonextraction cases compared to the LT group (mean treatment time 25.9 ± 8.1 months); treatment time significantly increased in the ET group compared to the LT group. Early Class II treatment resulted in a significant treatment effort reduction in more than one third of the patients and less lower incisor proclination, even if it clinically increased treatment time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

Männchen¹,

Serafin

Fastuca

et al. 2022

Children

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization according to temporary anchorage device features and appliance design: systematic review and meta-analysis

Ceratti,

Serafin,

Del Fabbro

et al. 2023

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of distalizing maxillary first molars (U6) by temporary anchorage devices (TADs) according to their location (palatal, buccal, and zygomatic), their number, and appliance design. Materials and Methods An electronic search of maxillary molar distalization with TADs was done through April 2023. After study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, meta-analyses were performed for the extent of distalization, distal tipping, and vertical movement of U6 using the generic inverse variance and random-effects model. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results Forty studies met the inclusion criteria: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 prospective studies, and 23 retrospective studies (total of 1182 patients). Distalization of the U6 was not significantly greater (P = .64) by palatal (3.74 mm) and zygomatic (3.68 mm) than by buccal (3.23 mm) TADs. Distal tipping was significantly higher (P < .001) in nonrigid (9.84°) than in rigid (1.97°) appliances. Vertical movement was mostly intrusive and higher but not significantly different (P = .28) in zygomatic anchorage (−1.16 mm). Conclusions Distalization of U6 with TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure, especially when performed with rigid palatal appliances. However, further RCTs or prospective cohort studies are strongly recommended to provide more clinical evidence.

show abstract

Subperiosteal Anchorage in Orthodontics: A Narrative Review

Cited by 2 publications

References 27 publications

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization according to temporary anchorage device features and appliance design: systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About