# Maxillary incisors and molars with conventional and skeletal anchorage device: A randomized controlled trial

## TL;DR

This study compares traditional and mini-implant anchorage methods for moving maxillary teeth, finding that mini-implants offer better control.

## Contribution

The study introduces mini-implant anchorage as a more effective method for controlling molar movement and retraction.

## Key findings

- Mini-implants caused distal and intrusive movement of maxillary molars.
- Conventional anchorage led to mesial and extrusive molar movement.
- Mini-implants provided more stable molar tipping and better anterior teeth control.

## Abstract

Effect of traditional anchorage techniques and new mini-implant methods on the positioning of maxillary incisors and molars in terms
of anteroposterior, vertical and angular changes is of interest. Hence, eighteen patients, with either Angle Class II Division 1
malocclusion or Class I malocclusion with a bimaxillary protrusion, were split into two groups: Group 1, which used mini-implants and
Group 2, which relied on conventional anchorage. Space was closed within 12-18 months and the lateral cephalograms and orthopantomograms
(OPGs) were taken at the start (T1) and after space closure (T2). In Group 1, significant movement of the maxillary first molars in both
a distal and intruding direction into the bone was observed. Meanwhile, the molars in Group 2 were shifted mesially and extruded. Molar
tipping was more stable in Group 1. Mini-implant anchorage proved more efficient in controlling molar movement, retraction and anterior
teeth tipping.