Malmö University Publications
System disruptions
We are currently experiencing disruptions on the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems: a randomized controlled trial
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
2008 (English)In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, ISSN 0889-5406, E-ISSN 1097-6752, Vol. 133, no 3, p. 19-28Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION: Our aim in this investigation was to evaluate and compare orthodontic anchorage capacity of 4 anchorage systems during leveling/aligning and space closure after maxillary premolar extractions. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients (60 girls, 60 boys; mean age, 14.3 years; SD 1.73) were recruited and randomized into 4 anchorage systems: Onplant (Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden), Orthosystem implant (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland), headgear, and transpalatal bar. The main outcome measures were cephalometric analysis of maxillary first molar and incisor movement, sagittal growth changes of the maxilla, and treatment time. The results were also analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The maxillary molars were stable during the leveling/aligning in the Onplant, Orthosystem implant, and headgear groups, but the transpalatal bar group had anchorage loss (mean, 1.0 mm; P <.001). During the space-closure phase, the molars were still stable in the Onplant and Orthosystem groups, whereas the headgear and transpalatal bar groups had anchorage loss (means, 1.6 and 1.0 mm, respectively; P <.001). Thus, the Onplant and the Orthosystem implant groups had significantly higher success rates for anchorage than did the headgear and transpalatal bar groups. Compared with the Orthosystem implant, there were more technical problems with the Onplant. CONCLUSIONS: If maximum anchorage is required, the Orthosystem implant is the system of choice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 133, no 3, p. 19-28
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-6727DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.014ISI: 000254864300007PubMedID: 18331927Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-40449101658Local ID: 6779OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-6727DiVA, id: diva2:1403677
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-02-05Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Orthodontic anchorage: evidence-based evaluation of anchorage capacity and patients' perceptions
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Orthodontic anchorage: evidence-based evaluation of anchorage capacity and patients' perceptions
2007 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Orthodontic anchorage is the ability to resist unwanted reciprocalforces and reinforcement of anchorage by supplementary appliances,in or outside the mouth, is often needed to obtain successful results.In the last 10 years, interest in appliances that use implants has beengrowing.Successful orthodontic treatment demands effective methods andsystematic evaluation of different treatment approaches is thereforeessential. Several studies on the efficiency of various anchorage systemshave been published, but a critical appraisal or interpretationof evidence that systematically considers validity, results, and relevancehas not been made. Analysis of treatment modalities must alsoinclude patients’ perceptions and potential side-effects.The overall aim of this thesis was to evaluate a new anchoragetechnique that incorporates osseointegration and compare it withconventional methods concerning effects on tooth movements inadolescents and their acceptance and experience of the additionalsurgical procedures that osseointegration involves. The followinganchorage systems were analyzed: Onplant system, Orthosystemimplant, headgear and transpalatal bar.This thesis was based on four studies:Paper I systematically reviewed the efficiency of orthodontic anchoragesystems and interpreted the methodological quality of theselected studies from an evidence-based perspective. The literaturesearch spanned January 1966 – December 2004 and was later extendedto July 2007.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö University, Faculty of Odontology, Department of Orthodontics, 2007. p. 132
Series
Swedish Dental Journal : Supplement, ISSN 0348-6672 ; 191
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-7713 (URN)18210769 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-38749127598 (Scopus ID)4751 (Local ID)91-7104-294-6 (ISBN)4751 (Archive number)4751 (OAI)
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-12-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Bondemark, Lars

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bondemark, Lars
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 47 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf