Skip to main content


Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Fig. 7 | Head & Face Medicine

Fig. 7

From: Comparison of anchorage reinforcement with temporary anchorage devices or a Herbst appliance during lingual orthodontic protraction of mandibular molars without maxillary counterbalance extraction

Fig. 7

Graphic representation of quality of space closure (by protraction, or by protraction and distalization of anchorage teeth) or mean anchorage loss. In the Herbst group, space closure was achieved solely by protraction of posterior teeth and with a success rate of complete gap closure in 100 % in all of the 22 space closure sites, with a mean protraction distance of 7.4 ± 2.2 mm. In the TAD group, space closure was achieved in 76.9 % of sites (mean distance 4 ± 2.1 mm) from distal direction (protraction), and in 23.1 % (mean distance 1.2 ± 1.2 mm) from mesial direction, indicating a loss of anchorage. Space closure in the TAD group was incomplete in 50 % of cases, with gap residues of a mean 1 mm

Back to article page