Literature DB >> 24592906

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

André da Costa Monini1, Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior, Renato Parsekian Martins, Alexandre Protásio Vianna.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the velocity of canine retraction, anchorage loss and changes on canine and first molar inclinations using self-ligating and conventional brackets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adults with Class I malocclusion and a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this randomized split-mouth control trial. Patients had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to maxillary canines randomly. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel-titanium closed coil springs, which were reactivated every 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after canine retraction was completed, and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the maxilla. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a blinded operator for error control, and the following landmarks were collected: canine cusp and apex horizontal changes, molar cusp and apex horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. The blinded data, which were normally distributed, were analyzed through paired t-tests for group differences.
RESULTS: No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested.
CONCLUSIONS: Both brackets showed the same velocity of canine retraction and loss of anteroposterior anchorage of the molars. No changes were found between brackets regarding the inclination of canines and first molars.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anchorage; Canine retraction; Self-ligating brackets; Tooth movement rate

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24592906      PMCID: PMC8641262          DOI: 10.2319/100813-743.1

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


  37 in total

1.  The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics.

Authors:  Max Hain; Ashish Dhopatkar; Peter Rock
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  The validity of superimposing oblique cephalometric radiographs to assess tooth movement: an implant study.

Authors:  Maurício Tatsuei Sakima; Cristiane G Ponce Sakima; Birte Melsen
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment.

Authors:  Emily Ong; Hugh McCallum; Mark P Griffin; Christopher Ho
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets.

Authors:  L Pizzoni; G Ravnholt; B Melsen
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments.

Authors:  N G Taylor; K Ison
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  A clinical investigation of the concepts of differential and optimal force in canine retraction.

Authors:  C H Boester; L E Johnston
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1974-04       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  The segmented arch approach to space closure.

Authors:  C J Burstone
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1982-11

8.  Effects of low-intensity laser therapy on the orthodontic movement velocity of human teeth: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Delma R Cruz; Eduardo K Kohara; Martha S Ribeiro; Niklaus U Wetter
Journal:  Lasers Surg Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.025

9.  Clinical application of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) upon orthodontic tooth movement.

Authors:  K Yamasaki; Y Shibata; S Imai; Y Tani; Y Shibasaki; T Fukuhara
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1984-06

Review 10.  Medication effects on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Theodosia Bartzela; Jens C Türp; Edith Motschall; Jaap C Maltha
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  7 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.  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

3.  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

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 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.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.