Literature DB >> 21208082

Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Maurício Mezomo1, Eduardo S de Lima, Luciane Macedo de Menezes, André Weissheimer, Susiane Allgayer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canines with self-ligating and conventional brackets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment completed this study. In a random split-mouth design, the retraction of upper canines was performed using an elastomeric chain with 150 g of force. The evaluations were performed in dental casts (T0, initial; T1, 4 weeks; T2, 8 weeks; T3, 12 weeks). The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well as anchorage loss of the upper first molars were evaluated.
RESULTS: There was no difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets regarding the distal movement of upper canines and mesial movement of first molars (P > .05). Rotation of the upper canines was minimized with self-ligating brackets (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Distal movement of the upper canines and anchorage loss of the first molars were similar with both conventional and self-ligating brackets. Rotation of the upper canines during sliding mechanics was minimized with self-ligating brackets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21208082      PMCID: PMC8925270          DOI: 10.2319/062510-348.1

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


  25 in total

1.  Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency.

Authors:  N W Harradine
Journal:  Clin Orthod Res       Date:  2001-11

2.  A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains.

Authors:  Jim Bokas; Michael Woods
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  2006-05

Review 3.  Cellular, molecular, and tissue-level reactions to orthodontic force.

Authors:  Vinod Krishnan; Ze'ev Davidovitch
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 4.  Self-ligating brackets: present and future.

Authors:  Daniel J Rinchuse; Peter G Miles
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 5.  Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review.

Authors:  Sayeh Ehsani; Marie-Alice Mandich; Tarek H El-Bialy; Carlos Flores-Mir
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Fact or friction: the clinical relevance of in vitro steady-state friction studies.

Authors:  Michael L Swartz
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2007-08

7.  Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts in extraction and nonextraction cases.

Authors:  L T Bailey; A Esmailnejad; M A Almeida
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Effects of a doubled orthodontic force magnitude on tooth movement and root resorptions. An inter-individual study in adolescents.

Authors:  P Owman-Moll; J Kurol; D Lundgren
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Human tooth movement in response to continuous stress of low magnitude.

Authors:  L R Iwasaki; J E Haack; J C Nickel; J Morton
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics.

Authors:  Peter G Miles
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  19 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.  Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Authors:  Yassir A Yassir; Grant T McIntyre; Ahmed M El-Angbawi; David R Bearn
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 3.  Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Xianrui Yang; Yiruo He; Tian Chen; Mengyuan Zhao; Yinqiu Yan; Hongzhe Wang; Ding Bai
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Saritha Sivarajan; Jennifer Geraldine Doss; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Martyn T Cobourne; Mang Chek Wey
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Comparison of movement rate with different initial moment-to-force ratios.

Authors:  Shuning Li; Jie Chen; Katherine S Kula
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.650

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.  Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Ferdinand M Machibya; Xingfu Bao; Lihua Zhao; Min Hu
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-08-17       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.