 |
| Title |
Comparison Of Skeletal And Conventional Anchorage Methods In Conjunction With Pre-Operative Decompensation Of A Skeletal Class III Malocclusion |
| Clinical Question |
During pre-operative decompensation for skeletal Class III patients, does the skeletal anchorage via mini-implants compared with the conventional molar anchorage result in less anchorage loss? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
For skeletal class three patients undergoing preoperative decompensation, the use of skeletal anchorage results in less anchorage loss than the use of conventional molar anchorage (2.05mm and 4.21mm respectively). (See Comments on the CAT below) |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 19649577 | Wilmes/2009 | Skeletal anchorage via mini-implants (n=10)conventional molar anchorage (n=10) | Cohort (prospective clinical series study) | | Key results | Skeletal anchorage via mini-implants compared to the conventional molar anchorage gives a better result. The anchorage loss of 4.21 mm (+/- 1.17 mm)obtained with conventional anchorage was greater than that of skeletal anchorage via mini-implants in the anterior palate (2.05 mm [+/- 1.39 mm]). 2mm was the difference in the posterior transversal changes. | |
| Evidence Search |
Search (anchorage[Title]) AND Skeletal Class III[Title] ...view in PubMed |
Comments on
The Evidence |
This paper is a prospective clinical series study. 20 patients were divided to two groups of 10 each. Each group received one of the two treatments studied. The author didn’t mention if patients were assigned randomly or if the clinicians and the patients were blinded. The size of both groups was minimal. Still, the groups were similar at start, the completion rate was higher than 80%, the same evaluation method was used for both groups, and the compliance was adequate. |
| Applicability |
The treatments are applicable for surgical orthodontic patients with skeletal class III malocclusions and if the treatment team has sufficient expertise with mini-implants. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Orthodontics) (Pediatric Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Anchorage, Skeletal class III, skeletal anchorage, conventional anchorage.
|
| ID# |
826 |
| Date of submission: |
03/24/2011 Revised: 10/05/2011 |
| E-mail |
bechara@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Boulos Bechara |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Peter T. Gakunga, BDS, MS, PhD |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
GAKUNGA@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Sammy Houari & Mohammad M. AlJameel (San Antonio, TX & Riyadh) on 06/25/2014
A PubMed search conducted on this topic on 6/25/2014. The evidence presented in this CAT is still valid and the article listed contains the highest level of evidence at this time. | |
|
|
