Study of various types of Temporary Anchorage Device (TAD) placements in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in rural dental hospital of Western Maharashtra: A cross-sectional study

  • Dr. Shubhangi Mani Professor, Department Of Orthodontics And Dentofacial Orthopedics, Rural Dental College, Pravara Institute Of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Loni-413 736, Maharashtra, India
  • Dr. Nikita Darda Post graduate student, Department Of Orthodontics And Dentofacial Orthopedics, Rural Dental College, Pravara Institute Of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Loni-413 736, Maharashtra, India
  • Dr. Toshniwal NG Professor, Department Of Orthodontics And Dentofacial Orthopedics, Rural Dental College, Pravara Institute Of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Loni-413 736, Maharashtra, India
Keywords: Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs), osseointegration

Abstract

Introduction: The present study was aimed to study various types of TAD placements in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in the Rural Dental Hospital of Western Maharashtra.

Material & Methods: The study was a descriptive cross-sectional type carried out in the Department of Orthodontics & dentofacial orthopedics, Rural Dental College, Loni. The study population included all patients of both gender and aged above 12 years, who were scheduled for placement of Temporary Anchorage Devices (TAD) in orthodontic treatment, and willing to participate in the study were included in the study. The number of sites and details of TAD placement in terms of side and quadrant was recorded.

Results and conclusion: TAD implants are common in the age group of 19-21 years and females. The common sites of the implant were URPR/ULPR followed by MaxAR, URZB/ULZB, and LRBS/LLBS. The use of miniscrews was most common as TAD in patients undergoing Orthodontic treatment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ruben Peralta, Michael R Pinsky, Lidocaine Toxicity – eMedicine. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/167309-overview

Neal D. Kravitz et al. The use of temporary anchorage devices for the molar intrusion. JADA, January 2007, Vol. 138 http://jada.ada.org , 56-64

Mirhashemi A, Hosseini MH, Yadalloahi H, Jalali YF. Pain and discomfort experienced after mini screw insertion as an anchorage device in orthodontic patients. Dent Hypotheses 2016; 7:112-6.

Tsui WK, Chua HD, Cheung LK. Bone anchor systems for orthodontic application: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:1427‑38.

Cope J. Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a paradigm shift. Semin Orthod 2005;11(1):3-9.

Jasoria G, Shamim W, Rathore S, Kalra A, Manchanda M, Jaggi N. Miniscrew implants as temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: A comprehensive review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:993-9.

Fritz U, Ehmer A, Diedrich P. Clinical suitability of titanium micro‑screws for orthodontic anchorage‑Preliminary experiences. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:410‑8.

Tseng YC, Chen CM, Wang HC, Wang CH, Lee HE, Lee KT. Pain perception during miniplate‑assisted orthodontic therapy.Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2010;26:603‑8.

How to Cite
1.
Dr. Shubhangi Mani, Dr. Nikita Darda, Dr. Toshniwal NG. Study of various types of Temporary Anchorage Device (TAD) placements in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in rural dental hospital of Western Maharashtra: A cross-sectional study. Med. res. chronicles [Internet]. 2019Oct.31 [cited 2024Apr.19];6(5):237-40. Available from: https://medrech.com/index.php/medrech/article/view/394
Section
Original Research Article