Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anchorage Control in
Bioprogressive vs Straight-wire Treatment
Dayse Uriasa; Fatima Ibrahim Abdel Mustafab
Abstract: Orthodontic techniques with different concepts and philosophies have emerged to
provide adequate anchorage control. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness
of the Bioprogressive and Straight-wire techniques in the control of lower anchorage. Data were
obtained from the records of 40 patients presenting Class I and II malocclusions treated with first
bicuspid extractions. One group of 20 patients was treated with a utility arch used to set up cortical
anchorage in the lower arch and sectional retraction mechanics for space closure. The second
group was treated with straight wire with a preadjusted appliance system. Treatment evaluation
revealed no significant between-group differences in the amount of skeletal growth relative to
cranial base and lower mesial movement of first molars. Mean lower anchorage loss was 3.1 mm
in the Bioprogressive patients and four mm in the Straight-wire patients. The apical base change
was the most important component to molar correction. Although cortical anchorage did not im-
pede lower molar movement, it was no less effective in controlling molar movement with a partial
appliance than was the fully banded Straight-wire appliance. (Angle Orthod 2005;75:987992.)
Key Words: Anchorage; Space closure; Cortical anchorage; Biomechanics; Straight wire; Bio-
progressive
The development of the Straight-wire appliance by (0.016 3 0.016 inch).21 Because the subjects had a
Andrews2325 brought about a new technology with mixed dentition, the second molar could not yet be
simplified mechanics, which has allowed orthodontists included in the appliance. The Straight-wire technique
to treat patients efficiently with consistent quality re- followed the method developed by McLaughlin and
sults.26 This sliding technique, however, involves a risk Bennett.2628 In this group, retraction consisted of one
of frictional binding and temporary stops in the tooth step retraction of the maxillary anterior segment. Sec-
movement caused by deformation and irregularities in ond molars were included in the mechanics. Lingual
the arch, and may demand a greater control of the arches were used during the aligning phase in the pa-
anchorage.17 tients who did not have second molars at the start.
The present study had the purpose of characterizing
and comparing the role of growth and lower anchorage Data collection
control in cases treated using the Bioprogressive and
Each patient had two lateral cephalometric radio-
Straight-wire techniques.
graphs taken, one before and the other after treat-
ment. Tracing, superimposition, and measurements all
MATERIALS AND METHODS
were done by hand (with the aid of digital calipers).
The sample consisted of two groups of 20 subjects, The linear measurements were executed to the near-
each treated at the Orthodontic Graduate Program, est 0.1 mm.
Center for Professional Development of the Brazilian To separate growth from treatment, the Johnston
Association of Dentistry. Characteristics of the sam- cephalometric method29 was used (Figure 1). Accord-
ples are listed in Table 1. The criteria for selection ingly, the sources of molar correction were assessed
were the existence of a Class I or II molar relationship, by measuring movements of the molars relative to
a mesiofacial pattern, more than eight mm of lower basal bone and the translatory growth of the jaws with
arch length deficiency, and requiring four first premolar respect to both the cranial base and one another.
extractions. All patients were selected on the basis of Changes that contributed to a Class II correction
maximum anchorage needs. Cervical headgear was (eg, mandibular growth or distal movement of the up-
used for upper anchorage in both groups. The lower per molars) were given a positive sign and those that
molar anchorage was chosen for evaluation because detracted (eg, maxillary growth, upper anchorage loss)
its maintenance did not require any appliance depen- were given a negative sign. In this analysis, sagittal
dent on patient compliance. changes that affect molar correction (ie, growth, an-
Group I was treated using the Bioprogressive tech- chorage loss) can be distinguished with respect to
nique of Ricketts et al19 (3M Unitek, 0.018 3 0.025- magnitude and source.
inch bracket slots) and group II was treated using the
Straight-wire technique (Brackets, A-Company 0.021 Statistical analysis
3 0.028 inch). The Roth prescription system was used
Common descriptive statistics were calculated for
in both groups.
each of the various measures of treatment change,
and the differences between the two groups were ex-
Treatment mechanics
amined by means of analysis of variance.
The segmented approach of the Bioprogressive Because the present study covered both sexes and
technique consisted of a utility arch, 0.016- by 0.016- a wide range of starting ages and treatment times,
inch stainless steel arch wire used to set up cortical Schulhof and Baghas30 sex-specific growth curves
anchorage in the lower arch. Cuspid retraction springs were integrated over each subjects period of treat-
were followed by closing utility arches of blue Elgilloy ment observation. For each year of development, the
TABLE 3. Correlation Coefficients for the Relationship Between Treatment Change and Expected Growth Unit
Bioprogressive Group Straight-wire Group
Correlation Correlation
Coefficient Coefficient
(r) P (r) P
Max r 5 20.7252 P , .0001 r 5 20.3363 P 5 .1471
Mand r 5 10.6932 P , .0001 r 5 10.5427 P 5 .0134
ABCH r 5 10.3783 P 5 .1001 r 5 10.4504 P 5 .0462
U6 (total) r 5 20.3830 P 5 .0956 r 5 20.4348 P 5 .0554
L6 (total) r 5 10.1499 P 5 .5283 r 5 10.1555 P 5 .5126
L6 (bodily) r 5 10.1699 P 5 .4740 r 5 10.1644 P 5 .4885
L6 (tipping) r 5 20.0713 P 5 .7653 r 5 20.0313 P 5 .8959
6/6 r 5 10.0743 P 5 .7555 r 5 10.2390 P 5 .3103
a
ABCH indicates apical base change; EGU, expected growth unit.
proper alignment of bracket slots is attained, the an- ger. Nevertheless, tooth movement is the key variable,
chorage needs toward the end of the case diminish- and it may result in a deficient molar correction.10
es.27 Bien37 concluded that anchorage is enhanced by in-
Although the two techniques used in this study creasing the number of teeth in the anchorage unit,
make use of different resources to control anchorage, thereby increasing the root area resisting displace-
the mesial movement of the molars was not signifi- ment. However, clinical experience based on the prac-
cantly different (Table 2). The mandibular molars tice of banding second molars has shown that this is
came forward 3.1 mm in the Bioprogressive group and not always reliable. This anchorage strategy was not
four mm in the Straight-wire group. It is interesting to supported by the present findings. Actually, the anchor
note that the principle of holding the molars against unit receives the lesser amount of force per unit area
cortical bone to improve anchorage is not supported along the periodontal membrane than the nonanchor
by the present findings. A study comparing anchorage unit (canines), which may be more physiologic.15 Loss
loss in a group of patients treated by the Bioprogres- of anchorage may then ensue.
sive with a group treated by the Standard-edgewise This study demonstrated that only a partial appli-
mechanics demonstrated similar results.33 ance incorporating cortical anchorage provided an-
Other studies have reported one-third of the mesial chorage equal to a fully banded lower arch. Although
movement of posterior teeth on the first bicuspid ex- cortical anchorage and the concept of segmented re-
traction.34,35 Johnston31 found a mean amount of 3.8 traction mechanics was not demonstrated to be more
mm of anchorage loss in the lower arch in a study of efficacious than the Straight-wire appliance, it was not
Class II extraction patients treated edgewise. Tooth worse either. This implies that Class II correction,
movement accounted for 40% of the molar correction, space closure, and the use of Class II elastics may all
whereas the remaining 60% of the correction came be accomplished when the entire lower arch (second
from ABCH. In a similar study of three groups of pa- molars) is not available for strap-up.
tients treated with conventional anchorage prepara- In this study, estimates of expected growth intensity
tion, ten-two system, and without anchorage prepara- derived from the integration of sex-specific incremental
growth curves were used to adjust a wide range of
tion, the mesial displacement of the lower molars was
starting ages and treatment times.30 Therefore, the use
3.2, 2.6, and 3.4 mm, respectively.10
of an untreated control group (eg, Bolton, Burlington,
In this study, 44% and 57% of the extraction space
Michigan) would possibly yield better comparisons.
was lost by mesial movement of the lower molars in
groups I and II, respectively. Considering that the ex- CONCLUSIONS
traction of a first premolar in each quadrant produces
approximately 14-mm space in each arch, little was left The results of this study support the following con-
for correction of crowding and uprighting of lower in- clusions:
cisors. There were no differences in anchorage loss be-
According to Bench et al,20 reaction to treatment me- tween the two groups studied even though the
chanics is dependent on the influence of the facial pat- source of anchorage was different. Therefore, the
tern. Baretta,36 in a study of Class II extraction treat- present results do not support the notion that one
ment by the Bioprogressive therapy, found 3.6 mm of treatment strategy is superior to the other in terms
lower anchorage loss in the mesiofacial pattern, of anchorage control.
against 4.5 mm in the dolichofacial and 2.9 mm in the The pattern of jaw growth was similar in both groups,
brachyfacial pattern. with a higher growth expected unit in the Biopro-
In this study, group I demonstrated a slightly greater gressive group because of an earlier treatment start-
growth potential as estimated by EGU (Table 3). This ing age.
is explained by the fact that usually Bioprogressive Lower anchorage loss was matched by upper mesial
treatment starts at an earlier age. Meanwhile, a posi- movement of upper posterior teeth in both groups.
tive correlation was seen between EGU and mandib- Differential jaw growth was the most important com-
ular growth in groups I and II, which means that ABCH ponent to molar correction.
was more important than tooth movement (Figures 2
and 3). The contribution to the correction came about REFERENCES
as a by-product of the usual pattern of facial growth. 1. Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon
The mandible outgrew the maxilla in the 20 patients in AD. Anchorage lossa multifactorial response. Angle Or-
thod. 2003;73:730737.
group I and 19 in group II. This means that when man- 2. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the Edge-
dibular growth ceases, the main source of molar cor- wise arch in the treatment of malocclusions. Angle Orthod.
rection is no longer present. Treatment may last lon- 1941;7:511.
3. Rohde AC. Fundamentals of anchorage, force and move- Part 7: The utility and sectional arches in Bioprogressive
ment. J Orthod. 1948;34:860867. therapy mechanics. J Clin Orthod. 1978;12:192207.
4. Renfroe EW. The factor of stabilization in anchorage. Am J 22. Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers J. Bioprogressive therapy.
Orthod. 1956;42:883897. Part 9: Mechanics sequences for extraction cases. J Clin
5. Higley LB. Anchorage in orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1960; Orthod. 1978;12:334357.
46:456465. 23. Andrews LF. Six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod.
6. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the Edge- 1972;62:296309.
wise arch in the treatment of malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 24. Andrews LF. The Straight-wire appliance: origin, controver-
1941;11:1267. sy, commentary. J Clin Orthod. 1976;10:99114.
7. Holdaway RA. Bracket angulation as applied to the Edge- 25. Andrews LF. The Straight-wire appliance: explained and
wise appliance. Angle Orthod. 1952;22:227236. compared. J Clin Orthod. 1976;10:174195.
8. Merrifield, LL. The Sequential Directional Force Technique, 26. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Anchorage control during lev-
in New Vistas in Orthodontics. Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Fe- eling and aligning with a preadjusted appliance system. J
biger; 1985:184208. Clin Orthod. 1991;25:687696.
9. Dewel BF. The clinical application of the Edgewise appli- 27. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. The transition from standard
ance in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1956;42:428. Edgewise to preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod.
10. Johnston LE Jr, Lin S, Peng SJ. Anchorage loss: a com- 1989;23:142153.
parative analysis. J Charles H. Tweed Int Found. 1988;16: 28. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Controlled space closure with
2327. preadjusted appliance systems. J Clin Orthod. 1990;24:
11. Melsen B, Bosch C. Different approaches to anchorage: a 251260.
survey and an evaluation. Angle Orthod. 1997;1:2330. 29. Johnston LE Jr. Balancing the books on orthodontic treat-
12. Storey E, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation to ment: an integrated analysis of change. Br J Orthod. 1996;
23:93102.
tooth movement. Australas Dent J. 1952;56:1118.
30. Schulhof RJ, Bagha L. A statistical evaluation of the Rick-
13. Begg PR. Differential force in orthodontic treatment. Am J
etts and Johnston growth-forecasting methods. Am J Or-
Orthod. 1956;42:481510.
thod. 1975;67:258276.
14. Nanda R, Kuhlberg A. Biomechanical basis of extraction
31. Johnston LE Jr. A comparative analysis of Class II treat-
closure. In: Nanda R, Kuhlberg A, eds. Biomechanics in
ments. In: McNamara JA Jr, Carlsson DS, Vig PS, Ribbens
Clinical Orthodontics. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders;
KA, eds. Science and Clinical Judgment in Orthodontics.
1996:156187.
Monograph 18, Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor,
15. Hart A, Taft L, Greenberg SN. The effectiveness of differ- Mich: Center for Human Growth and Development, The Uni-
ential moments in establishing and maintaining anchorage. versity of Michigan; 1986:103148.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102:434442. 32. Johnston LE Jr. Growth and the Class II patient: rendering
16. Rajcich MM, Sadowsky C. Efficacy of intra-arch mechanics unto Caesar. Semin Orthod. 1998;4:5962.
using differential moments for achieving anchorage control 33. Ellen KE, Schneider BJ, Sellke T. A comparative study of
in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; anchorage in Bioprogressive versus standard Edgewise
112:441448. treatment in Class II correction with intermaxillary elastic
17. Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:430436.
retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechan- 34. Williams R, Hosila FJ. The effect of different extraction sites
ics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:99106. upon incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1976;69:388410.
18. Lotzof LP, Fine HA. Canine retraction; a comparison of two 35. Creekmore TD. Where teeth should be positioned in the
preadjusted bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or- face and jaws and how to get them there. J Clin Orthod.
thop. 1996;110:191196. 1997;31:586608.
19. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers J, Schulhof 36. Baretta C. Tratamento das mas-oclusoes de Classe II, div-
RJ. Bioprogressive Therapy. Denver, Colo: Rocky Moun- isao 1: uma avaliacao quantitativa [masters thesis]. Curiti-
tain/Orthodontics; 1979. ba: Departamento de Ortodontia, Universidade Federal do
20. Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers J. Bio-progressive therapy. Parana Curitiba, 1994.
Part 2. Principles of the Bio-progressive therapy. J Clin Or- 37. Bien SM. Analysis of the components of forces used to ef-
thod. 1977;11:661682. fect distal movement of teeth. Am J Orthod. 1951;37:514
21. Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers J. Bioprogressive therapy. 520.