Clinical Evaluation of a Low-Friction Attachment Device during Canine Retraction

Deguchi, Toru; Imai, Mikako; Sugawara, Yasutake; Ando, Ryoko; Kushima, Kazuhiko; Takano‐Yamamoto, Teruko

doi:10.2319/102706-443.1

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies confirmed that forces bigger than 20-25 g could damage the periodontium [2][3][4]. However, in many cases orthodontists use much stronger forces (100 -150 g) with fixed appliances without any periodontal damage in many cases [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Changes in gingival blood flow during orthodontic treatment

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThe aim of the study was to investigate the changes in gingival blood flow due to orthodontic forces. Eleven volunteers, with the maxillary canine in an ectopic position were tested. A Laser Doppler Flowmeter (LDF) with a gingival probe was used, registering both the blood flow and temperature of the gingivae. After baseline measurement, a fixed orthodontic appliance was bonded. Measurements were repeated monthly, after activation of the appliance. The study lasted 6 months. The baseline value was 338.7 ± 201.56 P.U. [Perfusion Unit (mean ± S.D.)] which decreased to 218.9 ± 74.83 P.U. (p < 0.05) after two months and the final value of 363.9 ± 194.86 P.U was not significantly different from that initially (p > 0.5). The results showed that application of a force of 75 g resulted in a decrease in gingival blood flow up to 50%, but this returned to previous values after a few months. The study supports this measurement technique as a useful tool for monitoring gingival blood flow in long-term studies as well.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Changes in gingival blood flow during orthodontic treatment

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies did not consider anchorage loss. 15,17 It is noteworthy that loss of anchorage can often be desired by clinicians. Orthodontists must control the amount of mesial movement of posterior teeth according to each patient's unique treatment plan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radiographic methods, although effective for determining canine retraction and loss of anchor, 18 expose patients to unnecessary radiation and do not allow the evaluation of canine rotation. As in many other studies, 15,16,[18][19][20][21][22] plaster models were used here to obtain the measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Others randomized the side in which each system would be employed to reduce clinical research bias. [14][15][16] In the present study, randomization was chosen because the precision in bracket positioning could vary according to the patient's side. Such bias could influence the results, especially the evaluation of canine rotation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evaluation of space closure can be accomplished through intraoral measurements, 15,17 unlike the analysis of anchorage loss of molars and canine rotation. Radiographic methods, although effective for determining canine retraction and loss of anchor, 18 expose patients to unnecessary radiation and do not allow the evaluation of canine rotation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets

Mezomo¹,

Lima²,

Menezes³

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To measure space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canines with selfligating and conventional brackets. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment completed this study. In a random split-mouth design, the retraction of upper canines was performed using an elastomeric chain with 150 g of force. The evaluations were performed in dental casts (T0, initial; T1, 4 weeks; T2, 8 weeks; T3, 12 weeks). The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well as anchorage loss of the upper first molars were evaluated. Results: There was no difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets regarding the distal movement of upper canines and mesial movement of first molars (P . .05). Rotation of the upper canines was minimized with self-ligating brackets (P , .05). Conclusion: Distal movement of the upper canines and anchorage loss of the first molars were similar with both conventional and self-ligating brackets. Rotation of the upper canines during sliding mechanics was minimized with self-ligating brackets. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:292-297.)

show abstract