A Comparison of Two Protocol for Maxillary Molar Intrusion Buccal Miniscrew and TPA Versus Vertical Holding Appliance
Not Applicable
Active, not recruiting
- Conditions
- ANB , SNA, SNBDental IntrusionMandibular RotationOpenbite Teeth | Teeth and Gum | Dental
- Interventions
- Biological: vertical holding applianceBiological: buccal miniscrew and TPA
- Registration Number
- NCT05433051
- Lead Sponsor
- Al-Azhar University
- Brief Summary
this study is to compare the dental and skeletal changes caused by the intrusion of maxillary first molars buccal miniscrew and TPA versus vertical holding appliance using lateral cephalometry.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 24
Inclusion Criteria
- Patients suffering class I or II with AOB.
- AOB ranged between 3-7 mm assessed from cephalometry.
- Patients with excess in posterior dentoalveolar height according to Burrstone .
- Patients with good oral hygiene and general health.
- Patients with no previous orthodontic treatment.
- Good quality of lateral cephalometry.
Exclusion Criteria
- Skeletal open bite
- previous orthodontic treatment
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description vertical holding appliance vertical holding appliance active comparator double center Buccal miniscrews with TPA buccal miniscrew and TPA active comparator double center
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method amount of skeletal changes Post-intervention at 6 months amount of mandibular rotation by cephalometry
amount of dental Post-intervention at 6 months rate of maxillary molar intrusion by cephalometry
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Mohamed Shendy
🇪🇬Cairo, Nasr City, Egypt