Oral Health: Orthodontics Oral Health Orthodontics
Conditions
Interventions
The anchorage offered by implants will be compared with that from conventional orthodontic anchorage reinforcement techniques.
Sponsors
Record provided by the NHS Trusts Clinical Trials Register - Department of Health (UK)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Added July 2008: The patients in the study all needed absolute anchorage, and no forward movement of upper molars could be allowed for successful treatment.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Added July 2008: Poor oral hygiene, unwilling to wear fixed appliances, unwilling to wear headgear or have the implant placed, and medical history precluding fixed appliance treatment.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Tooth movement. The difference in the mesial drift of the buccal teeth to be calculated: a. Relative to the cranial base using the Pitchfork analysis (Luecke and Johnston, 1992; Johnston, 1996) on the start and finish lateral cephalometric radiograph b. Relative to the palatal rugae, from the start and finish study models (Hoggan and Sadowsky, 2001) | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Implant stability, discomfort and any signs of inflammation of the peri-implant tissues will be recorded with percussion tests using a Resonance Frequency Analyser (Meredith, 1998) and standard periodontal indices 2. Patient acceptability, compliance and discomfort measured using a questionnaire 3. Treatment outcome measured with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index on the pre- and post-treatment study models | — |
Countries
United Kingdom
Outcome results
None listed