title: [Comparison of treatment results between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage in patients with maxillary protrusion].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the treatment effects in patients with maxillary protrusion between implant anchorage and traditional intraoral anchorage.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty patients with maxillary protrusion treated with bilateral maxillary first premolars extractions and high anchorage were selected. They were randomly divided into implant anchorage group and traditional intraoral anchorage group. Each group had 15 cases. The casts and the cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T1) and after treatment (T2). Three-dimensional model analysis was used to compare the teeth movements between the two groups and cephalometric analysis was used to compare the changes of skeletal and soft tissues. The differences were analyzed with SPSS 17.0 software package.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the implant anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (6.661±1.328) mm and intruded by (0.129±1.815) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper central incisors were retracted by (5.788±2.009) mm and extruded by (2.623±1.776) mm. There was no significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement (P>0.05), but there was significant difference in vertical movement (P<0.05). In the implant anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (0.608±1.045) mm, intruded by (0.608±1.045) mm and moved palatally by (0.477±0.904) mm. In the traditional intraoral anchorage group, the upper first molars were protracted by (1.503±0.945) mm, extruded by (0.072±0.690) mm and moved palatally by (0.883±0.752)mm. There was significant difference between the two groups in sagittal movement and vertical movement (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in horizontal movement(P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the changes of cephalometric measurements of skeletal and soft tissues (P>0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Implant anchorage may be superior in vertical control of the maxillary incisors and also superior in sagittal and vertical control of the maxillary molars to traditional intraoral anchorage during management of maxillary protrusion.
authors.affiliation: Department of Stomatology, Peking University Third Hospital. Beijing 100191, China. E-mail:maning_2002@163.com.
authors.forename: Ning
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Ma
authors.forename: Wei-Ran
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Xiao-Hong
authors.initials: XH
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Xu
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Zheng
mesh_terms: D001641:Bicuspid; D002508:Cephalometry; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor; D008437:Maxilla; D008963:Molar; D052280:Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; D010159:Palate; D014081:Tooth Extraction; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques