Manjunath A Malagan1, Biswas P P2, Sunil Muddaiah3, Rami Reddy4, B K Shetty5, Jyosna Preetham6, Sanjay Naduwinmani7, Sujeet Singh8. 1. Reader, Department of Orthodontics, Karnataka Lingayat Education, Vishwanath Katti Institute of Dental Sciences , Belgaum, Karnataka, India . 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Othodontics, Royal dental college , Chalissery,Palghat Dist,Kerala, India . 3. Professor and HOD, Department of Orthodontics, Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences , Virajpet, Karnataka, India . 4. Professor and HOD, Department of Orhtodontics, Jodhpur dental College General Hospital , Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India . 5. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences , Virajpet, Karnataka, India . 6. Reader, Department of Orthodontics, Vasantdada patil Dental College & Hospital , Kavalapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India . 7. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Maratha Mandal's Nathajirao G Halgekar Institute od Dental Sciences & Research . Belgaum, Karnataka, India . 8. Senior Resident, Department of Orthodontics, S N Medical College & Hospital , Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India .
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the rapidity and amount of separation of four different types of separators (i.e. Elastomeric separators, Dumbbell separators, Kesling springs and NEET springs) and also the percentage of loss of these separators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The separating effect of 4 different types of separators (i.e. Elastomeric separators, Dumbbell separators, Kesling springs and NEET springs) were assessed for 3 days, and the separated space between molars and premolars were noted separately for three consecutive days. The number and types of lost separators were recorded at the same time. The amount of separation between molars and 2(nd) premolar in each quadrant was measured separately with a leaf gauge (sensitivity 5/100mm) and noted on each day. RESULTS: Dumbbell separators proved to be the fastest in producing separation and they produced consistently greater amount of separation on all three days. CONCLUSIONS: The Dumbbell separator would be ideal for situations where in rapid separation is needed, and also in cases where in the patient comes with the loss of separators.
AIM: To evaluate the rapidity and amount of separation of four different types of separators (i.e. Elastomeric separators, Dumbbell separators, Kesling springs and NEET springs) and also the percentage of loss of these separators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The separating effect of 4 different types of separators (i.e. Elastomeric separators, Dumbbell separators, Kesling springs and NEET springs) were assessed for 3 days, and the separated space between molars and premolars were noted separately for three consecutive days. The number and types of lost separators were recorded at the same time. The amount of separation between molars and 2(nd) premolar in each quadrant was measured separately with a leaf gauge (sensitivity 5/100mm) and noted on each day. RESULTS: Dumbbell separators proved to be the fastest in producing separation and they produced consistently greater amount of separation on all three days. CONCLUSIONS: The Dumbbell separator would be ideal for situations where in rapid separation is needed, and also in cases where in the patient comes with the loss of separators.
Authors: Hana O Al-Balbeesi; Sahar M Bin Huraib; Nadia W AlNahas; Huda M AlKawari; Abdulrahman B Abu-Amara; Sajith Vellappally; Sukumaran Anil Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2016 Nov-Dec