Literature DB >> 7957657

The effects of different sectional arches in canine retraction.

M Dinçer1, H N Işcan.   

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of Gjessing's canine retraction arch with a sectional arch including a reverse closing loop, which are both used for canine retraction in extraction cases. Our study involved both the maxilla and the mandible independently. After upper first premolar extractions and levelling of the teeth with 0.018-inch slot standard Edgewise appliances on 12 subjects, with a mean age of 15 years, the right maxillary canines were retracted by 0.016 x 0.022-inch sectional arches including a reverse closing loop, for a mean period of 7.75 months whereas the left maxillary canines were retracted by 0.016 x 0.022-inch Gjessing retraction arches for a mean period of 6.25 months. Following lower first premolar extractions and levelling of the teeth in eight subjects with a mean age of 13 years 7 months, the right mandibular canines were retracted by 0.016 x 0.022-inch sectional arches with reverse closing loop for a mean period of 7.75 months and the left mandibular canines were retracted by 0.016 x 0.022-inch Gjessing arches for a mean period of 6 months. The present study was carried out on 40 lateral cephalometric films of 20 subjects taken prior to and at the end of canine retraction. The differences between the mean changes of the sectional arch including reverse closing loop and Gjessing retraction arch groups were found to be statistically significant for the amount of upper canine crown retraction, mesial movement of upper first molar crown and duration and rate of upper canine distal movement.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7957657     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/16.4.317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  7 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.  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.  Efficacy of Second Molar to Achieve Anchorage Control in Maximum Anchorage Cases.

Authors:  S M Londhe; P Kumar; R Mitra; A Kotwal
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

4.  Effect of light-emitting photobiomodulation therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement : A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Yaman Güray; A Sema Yüksel
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 2.341

5.  Are there differences on tooth movement between different sectional canine retractors?

Authors:  B Işik Aslan; B Baloştuncer; M Dinçer
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  The Effect of Partial Corticotomy on the Rate of Maxillary Canine Retraction: Clinical and Radiographic Study.

Authors:  Hosam Ali Baeshen
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 4.411

7.  Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.

Authors:  Şuayip Akın; Hasan Camcı
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 2.750

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.