Literature DB >> 23745980

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

Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida1, Francisco Herrero, Amine Fattal, Amirparviz R Davoody, Ravindra Nanda, Flavio Uribe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency in anchorage preservation of conventional and self-ligating brackets after the extraction of first maxillary premolars using differential moment mechanics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage during space closure were evaluated based on bracket type. Group 1, comprising 23 patients, was bonded with preadjusted conventional brackets (CBs) with a slot of 0.022-inch × 0.030-inch. Group 2 comprised 15 patients who were bonded with 0.022 inch preadjusted self-ligating brackets (SLBs). Patients in both groups received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire to retract the incisors. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (T1) and at the completion of space closure (T2). Statistical comparisons were performed with paired and unpaired Student's t-tests.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups in maxillary molars anchorage loss (3.87 ± 1.35 mm and 3.65 ± 1.73 mm for the CB and SLB groups, respectively). Only the mean vertical movement of the tip of the incisor was significantly different between the groups (CB  =  -0.92 ± 1.46 mm; SLB  =  0.56 ± 1.65 mm).
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the amount of anchorage loss of the maxillary first molars between SLB and CB systems during space closure using differential moments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23745980      PMCID: PMC8722823          DOI: 10.2319/022813-170.1

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


  29 in total

1.  Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency.

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

2.  Friction in perspective.

Authors:  S Braun; M Bluestein; B K Moore; G Benson
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of "reduced-friction" brackets.

Authors:  Meir Redlich; Yaniv Mayer; Doron Harari; Israel Lewinstein
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material.

Authors:  Nicholas R Turnbull; David J Birnie
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Palatal implants are a good alternative to headgear: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jonathan Sandler; Philip E Benson; Peter Doyle; Arun Majumder; Jonathan O'Dwyer; Paul Speight; Badri Thiruvenkatachari; David Tinsley
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.

Authors:  Madhur Upadhyay; Sumit Yadav; Sameer Patil
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires.

Authors:  J R Bednar; G W Gruendeman; J L Sandrik
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Efficacy of intraarch mechanics using differential moments for achieving anchorage control in extraction cases.

Authors:  M M Rajcich; C Sadowsky
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques.

Authors:  Tian-Min Xu; Xiaoyun Zhang; Hee Soo Oh; Robert L Boyd; Edward L Korn; Sheldon Baumrind
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss.

Authors:  Wook Heo; Dong-Seok Nahm; Seung-Hak Baek
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiaozhen Zhou; Abdul Azeem Amin Ul Haq; Liu Tian; Xiaofeng Chen; Kui Huang; Yu Zhou
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 5.  Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kathrin Becker; Annika Pliska; Caroline Busch; Benedict Wilmes; Michael Wolf; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2018-10-25
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.