Comparative Analysis Of Miniscrew-Assisted Versus Conventional Anchorage For Anterior Teeth Retraction In Skeletal Class II Malocclusions: A

Abstract

Background: Skeletal Class II malocclusions often require significant anterior teeth retraction, where effective anchorage control is critical for optimal outcomes. Conventional anchorage methods, such as transpalatal arches and headgear, rely heavily on patient compliance and often lead to posterior anchorage loss. Miniscrew-assisted anchorage (TADs) has emerged as a promising alternative; however, robust multi-hospital evidence integrating three-dimensional (3D) evaluation remains limited..

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of miniscrew-assisted anchorage with conventional anchorage in anterior teeth retraction among skeletal Class II patients using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted across three teaching hospitals in Saudi Arabia, involving 80 participants (aged 16–30 years) allocated into two groups: Group A (TADs) and Group B (conventional anchorage). CBCT was used at baseline, four months, and eight months to evaluate anterior retraction, posterior anchorage loss, root resorption, and treatment duration. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v28 with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results: Group A achieved significantly greater anterior retraction (6.81 ± 0.72 mm vs. 5.12 ± 0.65 mm; p < 0.001), reduced posterior anchorage loss (0.84 ± 0.29 mm vs. 2.41 ± 0.53 mm; p < 0.001), and lower root volume reduction (1.12 ± 0.36 mm³ vs. 1.89 ± 0.41 mm³; p < 0.001). Treatment duration was shorter in Group A by approximately 1.5 months.

Conclusion: Miniscrew-assisted anchorage provides superior biomechanical control, improved efficiency, and better patient-centered outcomes compared to conventional methods in skeletal Class II retraction therapy.