[Retracted] Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion
Table 1
Demographic data of Groups 1 and 2.
Group 1 ()
Group 2 ()
Sig.
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Age at T0 stage (year)
22.16
3.11
24.64
7.85
0.1970
Dental variables at T0 stage
Crowding of the upper arch (mm)
2.15
0.80
1.83
1.07
0.2819
UOC-PP (°)
7.63
2.11
6.91
4.70
0.5386
U1-FH (°)
124.52
5.53
121.65
4.65
0.0827
Skeletal variables at T0 stage
Antero-posterior
SNA (°)
83.52
2.31
82.71
3.50
0.3884
SNB (°)
81.10
1.83
79.91
3.48
0.1827
ANB (°)
2.42
1.11
2.80
0.70
0.2070
Vertical
FMA (°)
26.08
3.55
29.75
6.78
0.0387
Bjork sum (°)
393.48
3.41
398.96
7.12
0.0036
Total treatment duration (month)
28.00
8.37
24.95
4.55
0.1602
Mann-Whitney test was performed. Group 1 means Class I malocclusion treated with conventional anchorage reinforcement; Group 2: Class I malocclusion treated with an orthodontic mini-implant; UOC: upper occlusal plane; U1: upper central incisor; SD: standard deviation; Sig.: significance; ; .
