A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics

Ziegler, Peter A.; Ingervall, Bengt

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0

Cited by 143 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The possible SAM disadvantages are the need for a refined biomechanics understanding to properly activate the springs and closing loop archwires, as well as the increased chances to cause patient discomfort when these loops are not adequately adjusted. 6 Conversely, the probable SM advantages are the simpler archwires used, the shorter chair time and lower chances to cause patient discomfort 7 . However, SM also presents disadvantages such as the higher chances to generate dental tipping and the friction generated at the bracket-wire-ligature interface.…”

Section: Friction and Sliding Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, higher levels of friction during sliding mechanics require the application of higher orthodontic forces and may compromise the amount of OTM obtained as well as complicate anchorage control. [5][6][7][8] Despite the undesirable effects that friction may cause in some stages of the orthodontic treatment, there are other clinical situations in which the presence of friction is beneficial such as when the orthodontist wants to use a group of teeth as a larger anchorage unit or during torquing at the finishing stage of treatment.…”

Section: Friction and Sliding Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of friction in orthodontics

Pacheco

Jansen

Oliveira

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Friction and Sliding Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Friction and Sliding Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of friction in orthodontics

Pacheco

Jansen

Oliveira

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Otra opción para ejercer el control molar es la barra traspalatina (btp) -aditamento desarrollado técnica y clínicamente por el doctod Goshgarian (1972) -la cual permite aplicaciones muy versátiles y puede ser activada de forma simétrica o asimétrica para realizar múltiples funciones, incluyendo estabilización después de una expansión palatina, para incrementar el anclaje [31][32][33][34], para la rotación de molares y ganar longitud de arco [35][36][37], para control del torque e inclinación mesio distal como alternativa para la corrección de la relación molar con una ligera discrepancia clase II [38], para control vertical de los molares impidiendo su extrusión [39][40][41][42], para el tratamiento de mordidas cruzadas unilaterales [43,44] y para mantener la forma del arco durante el tratamiento [32]. Entender la biomecánica de la btp puede ser complejo dado que funciona como un sistema de dos brackets que se ubican en lingual de los molares y que, asociados a un sistema completo, producen un sistema de fuerza estáticamente indeterminado [18,45,46].…”

Section: Barra Traspalatinaunclassified

Biomecánica en el control molar

Giraldo

Castaño²

2014

Rev. nac. odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cómo citar este artículo: Rendón Giraldo JE, Castaño G. Biomecánica en el control molar. Rev. Nac. Odontol. 2013 diciembre; 9 (edición especial): 109-117.Resumen. Una de las dificultades que surge durante la mecánica de tratamiento es el inadecuado control molar, el cual, tratado de una manera eficiente, permite un control preciso de fuerzas y de momentos, lo que aumenta la eficacia de la biomecánica. El conocimiento de los sistemas parciales 4 x 2, 6 x 2 y la barra traspalatina con sus diferentes formas de activación, dan una serie de ventajas que permiten la optimización de los resultados ortodóncicos. El objetivo de este artículo es aclarar conceptos, detallar posibles estrategias de tratamiento y analizar los efectos secundarios que se presentan con estos sistemas.Palabras clave: biomecánica, barra traspalatina, momentos diferenciales, sistemas parciales. Biomechanics in Molar ControlAbstract. Inadequate molar control is one of the difficulties that arise during mechanical treatment. When molar control is handled efficiently, it facilitates precise control of forces and moments, which increases the effectiveness of biomechanics. Knowledge of 4 x 2, 6 x 2 partial systems and the transpalatal bar with its different forms of activation offer a number of advantages that make it possible to optimize orthodontic results. The aim of this article is to clarify concepts, specify possible treatment strategies and analyze the side effects that occur with these systems.

show abstract

“…8 The angle formed between a line through the distal and mesial contact points of the canine, and the midpalatal raphe was measured at T0 and T2 (Figure 4).…”

Section: Canine Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duration and Anchorage Management of Canine Retraction with Bodily Versus Tipping Mechanics

Shpack

Davidovitch

Sarne

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare tipping mechanics (TM) and bodily mechanics (BM) with respect to duration, angulation, and anchorage loss during canine retraction. Materials and Methods: TM and BM brackets were bonded to the upper right and left canines, respectively, of 14 subjects requiring maxillary first premolar extractions. The upper canines were retracted with variable nickel titanium closed coil springs (F ϭ 0.50 or 0.75 N) attached posteriorly to a Nance anchorage appliance through the first molars. Panoramic radiographs and dental casts were taken at five time points. Canine angulation was assessed with custom metallic jigs inserted into the vertical slots of the canine brackets prior to radiographic exposure. Results: The canine crown contacted the second premolar after 102.2 Ϯ 106 and 99.0 Ϯ 80.0 days, and achieved root uprighting in 72.0 Ϯ 31.3 and 37.2 Ϯ 42.7 additional days with the TM and BM groups, respectively. Only the uprighting stage differed significantly between the two mechanics (P Ͻ .05). During retraction, tooth angulation differed significantly (P Ͻ .001) between the TM (6Њ) and BM (Ϫ0.8Њ) groups. Anchorage loss, as assessed by mesial molar movement, was 1.2 Ϯ 0.3 mm and 1.4 Ϯ 0.5 mm for the TM and BM groups, respectively. Conclusions: Bodily canine retraction occurred faster (38 days) than tipping due to a shorter duration of root uprighting. Anchorage loss (17%-20%) was similar for both retraction methods, ie, maximum anchorage could not be provided by the Nance appliance. Both TM and BM brackets had inadequate rotational control of the retracted canine.

show abstract

A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics

Cited by 143 publications

References 8 publications

The role of friction in orthodontics

The role of friction in orthodontics

Biomecánica en el control molar

Duration and Anchorage Management of Canine Retraction with Bodily Versus Tipping Mechanics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About