Literature DB >> 20482346

Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets.

S Jack Burrow1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of retraction down an archwire of maxillary canine teeth when bracketed with a self-ligating bracket was used on one side and a conventional bracket on the other.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 43 patients requiring maxillary premolar extraction, a self-ligating bracket (Damon3, SmartClip) was used on the maxillary canine on one side and a conventional bracket (Victory Series) on the other. The teeth were retracted down a 0.018-inch stainless steel archwire, using a medium Sentalloy retraction spring (150 g). The rates of retraction were analyzed using a paired t-test.
RESULTS: The mean movement per 28 days for the conventional bracket was 1.17 mm. For the Damon bracket it was 0.9 mm and for the SmartClip bracket it was 1.10 mm. The differences between the conventional and self-ligating brackets were statistically significant: paired t-test, SmartClip, P < .0043; Damon3, P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: The retraction rate is faster with the conventional bracket, probably because of the narrower bracket width of the self-ligating brackets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20482346      PMCID: PMC8966440          DOI: 10.2319/060809-322.1

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Ongoing innovations in biomechanics and materials for the new millennium.

Authors:  R P Kusy
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics: derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding.

Authors:  R P Kusy; J Q Whitley
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment.

Authors:  Peter G Miles; Robert J Weyant; Luis Rustveld
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?

Authors:  Peter G Miles
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  2005-11

5.  Frictional resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire combinations with effects of vertical deflections.

Authors:  R H Ogata; R S Nanda; M G Duncanson; P K Sinha; G F Currier
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Influence of angulation on the resistance to sliding in fixed appliances.

Authors:  L C Articolo; R P Kusy
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  A laminagraphic study of cuspid retraction versus molar anchorage loss.

Authors:  R C Paulson; T M Speidel; R J Isaacson
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1970-01       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values.

Authors:  A P Sims; N E Waters; D J Birnie
Journal:  Br J Orthod       Date:  1994-11

9.  A comparison of friction resistance for Nitinol and stainless steel wire in edgewise brackets.

Authors:  L Peterson; R Spencer; G Andreasen
Journal:  Quintessence Int Dent Dig       Date:  1982-05

10.  A comparison of elastomeric auxiliaries versus elastic thread on premolar extraction site closure: an in vivo study.

Authors:  A L Sonis; E Van der Plas; A Gianelly
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1986-01
View more
  14 in total

1.  An interview with Matheus Melo Pithon.

Authors:  Matheus Melo Pithon; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; David Normando; Carlos Flores-Mir; Dauro Douglas Oliveira
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 May-Jun

2.  Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations.

Authors:  Maria Regina Guerra Monteiro; Licinio Esmeraldo da Silva; Carlos Nelson Elias; Oswaldo de Vasconcellos Vilella
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.698

3.  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

4.  A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Alexandre Protásio Vianna; Renato Parsekian Martins
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances : A quantitative systematic review.

Authors:  Xianrui Yang; Chaoran Xue; Yiruo He; Mengyuan Zhao; Mengqi Luo; Peiqi Wang; Ding Bai
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  Effects of mechanical vibrations on maxillary canine retraction and perceived pain: a pilot, single-center, randomized-controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Khaled Taha; R Scott Conley; Praveen Arany; Stephen Warunek; Thikriat Al-Jewair
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.634

7.  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

8.  A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments.

Authors:  Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Francisco Herrero; Amine Fattal; Amirparviz R Davoody; Ravindra Nanda; Flavio Uribe
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Comparison of orthodontic space closure using micro-osteoperforation and passive self-ligating appliances or conventional fixed appliances.

Authors:  Rashmi Mittal; Sonal Attri; Puneet Batra; Saurabh Sonar; Karan Sharma; Sreevatsan Raghavan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Renato Parsekian Martins; Alexandre Protásio Vianna
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.