Literature DB >> 27246754

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

André da Costa Monini1,2, Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior3,4,5,6, Alexandre Protásio Vianna1,2, Renato Parsekian Martins2,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of lower canine retraction, anchorage loss, and changes on lower canines and first molars axial inclination using self-ligating and conventional brackets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five adult patients with a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this split-mouth trial and had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to lower canines in a block randomization. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel titanium closed-coil springs, which were reactivated each 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after total canine retraction and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the mandible. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a single-blinded operator for error control and the average of the points were used to determine the following variables: canine cusp horizontal changes, molar cusp horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. Paired t tests were used to analyze the blinded data for group differences.
RESULTS: All patients reached final phase without bracket debonds. No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested. No serious harm was observed.
CONCLUSION: Both brackets showed the same rate 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. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using self-ligating brackets to retract lower canines will not increase the velocity of tooth movement, does not increase anchorage, and does not decrease tipping.

Entities:  

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

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27246754     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1855-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  36 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.  Forces released during sliding mechanics with passive self-ligating brackets or nonconventional elastomeric ligatures.

Authors:  Lorenzo Franchi; Tiziano Baccetti; Matteo Camporesi; Ersilia Barbato
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Paul Scott; Andrew T DiBiase; Martyn Sherriff; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-10       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.  Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nikolaos Pandis; Argy Polychronopoulou; Christos Katsaros; Theodore Eliades
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  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

7.  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

8.  The effectiveness of differential moments in establishing and maintaining anchorage.

Authors:  A Hart; L Taft; S N Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  2 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.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.