INTRODUCTION: Canine distraction was introduced as an alternative treatment to retract the canines in minimum possible period of 3 weeks. It involved rapid canine retraction through distraction of the periodontal ligament. Another technique for rapid canine distalization involved osteotomies surrounding the canines to achieve rapid movement of the canines in the dentoalveolar segment known as dentoalveolar distraction. The present study is intended to assess and evaluate canine retraction by the above two mentioned methods of distraction osteogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight orthodontic patients who required first premolar extractions were selected and 16 canines were distracted into the extraction space, using a distraction screw. RESULTS: The distraction procedure was completed in 15.38 ± 1.51 days on the side of periodontal ligament distraction while it took 14.50 ± 2.45 days on the side of dentoalveolar distraction. No significant anchorage loss was seen in both the sides. The distal displacement of the canines was 6.63 ± 0.90 mm on the periodontal distraction side at the rate of 0.43 ± 0.05 mm/day and 6.91 ± 1.16 mm on the side of dentoalveolar distraction at the rate of 0.48 ± 0.08 mm/day. An angulation change of 14.94° ± 7.58° was observed in canine inclination in periodontal distraction side while change of 14.88° ± 3.15° was seen in the dentoalveolar distraction side. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in the various parameters were found between both the techniques of canine retraction by distraction osteogenesis, while reducing orthodontic treatment duration by 6-9 months without any unfavorable short-term effects on the periodontium.
INTRODUCTION:Canine distraction was introduced as an alternative treatment to retract the canines in minimum possible period of 3 weeks. It involved rapid canine retraction through distraction of the periodontal ligament. Another technique for rapid canine distalization involved osteotomies surrounding the canines to achieve rapid movement of the canines in the dentoalveolar segment known as dentoalveolar distraction. The present study is intended to assess and evaluate canine retraction by the above two mentioned methods of distraction osteogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight orthodontic patients who required first premolar extractions were selected and 16 canines were distracted into the extraction space, using a distraction screw. RESULTS: The distraction procedure was completed in 15.38 ± 1.51 days on the side of periodontal ligament distraction while it took 14.50 ± 2.45 days on the side of dentoalveolar distraction. No significant anchorage loss was seen in both the sides. The distal displacement of the canines was 6.63 ± 0.90 mm on the periodontal distraction side at the rate of 0.43 ± 0.05 mm/day and 6.91 ± 1.16 mm on the side of dentoalveolar distraction at the rate of 0.48 ± 0.08 mm/day. An angulation change of 14.94° ± 7.58° was observed in canine inclination in periodontal distraction side while change of 14.88° ± 3.15° was seen in the dentoalveolar distraction side. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in the various parameters were found between both the techniques of canine retraction by distraction osteogenesis, while reducing orthodontic treatment duration by 6-9 months without any unfavorable short-term effects on the periodontium.
Entities:
Keywords:
Distractor; Premolar; Pulp vitality; Rapid tooth movement