Literature DB >> 18004926

Clinical evaluation of a low-friction attachment device during canine retraction.

Toru Deguchi1, Mikako Imai, Yasuyo Sugawara, Ryoko Ando, Kazuhiko Kushima, Teruko Takano-Yamamoto.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study used a split-mouth design to compare the amount of canine movement and the retraction time between brackets with Clear Snap and brackets with stainless steel ligature wires for three different levels of retraction force.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 30 patients was used. After initial leveling, the canine was retracted using a 50-g (n = 10), 100-g (n = 10), or 150-g (n = 10) closed-coil spring. The canine on one side was chosen at random, and Clear Snap was attached to the bracket during the retraction period. The other side was used as a control. The amount of canine retraction was measured with a digital vernier caliper. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The average canine retraction time was approximately 2 to 3 months less in all experimental groups (50, 100, and 150 g) compared to the control group. In the control group, 150 g resulted in a shorter duration of canine retraction compared to 50 g. There was no significant difference in the duration of canine retraction among the experimental groups. A greater amount of mean total canine movement was observed in all experimental groups compared to the control groups.
CONCLUSION: A shorter duration of canine retraction time was observed with Clear Snap attached when compared with the control. The authors suggest that with the use of Clear Snap, less than 50 g of force may effectively retract a canine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18004926     DOI: 10.2319/102706-443.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  7 in total

1.  Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison.

Authors:  Andre da C Monini; Luiz G Gandini; Alexandre P Vianna; Renato P Martins; Helder B Jacob
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Maurício Mezomo; Eduardo S de Lima; Luciane Macedo de Menezes; André Weissheimer; Susiane Allgayer
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics.

Authors:  A Alper Oz; Nursel Arici; Selim Arici
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 4.  Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used.

Authors:  Rohit S Kulshrestha; Ragni Tandon; Pratik Chandra
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

5.  Effect of vibration on orthodontic tooth movement in a double blind prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Atsushi Mayama; Masahiro Seiryu; Teruko Takano-Yamamoto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Effects of a ceramic active self-ligating bracket on retraction/tipping/ rotation of canine, premolar mesialization, and transverse arch dimensions: A preliminary single-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mehrnaz Moradinejad; Nasim Ghorani; Majid Heidarpour; Meysam Noori; Vahid Rakhshan
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2021-10-21

7.  Comprehensive comparison of canine retraction using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains.

Authors:  Haya A Barsoum; Hend S ElSayed; Fouad A El Sharaby; Juan Martin Palomo; Yehya A Mostafa
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.