Dual Force Cuspid Retractor

Vyas, Matrishva; Alladwar, Neeraj; Singh, Gurkeerat

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1007

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The force was measured using a Dontrix gauge and a force of 150 grams was applied on the palatal as well as on the buccal aspect bilaterally, leading to a total force value of 300 grams. The mechanical advantage was provided by the elastic pull from the buccal power arm of the molar, which tends to distally tip the molar, augmenting the anchorage [4] as depicted in Figure 2.…”

Section: Dual Force Cuspid Retractormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sliding mechanics take more time and require more anchorage. Proponents of the non-frictional approach claim to overcome these disadvantages [4]. Patients have always been very concerned about how long orthodontic treatment will take, especially in bicuspid extraction-based treatment plans where cuspid retraction requires a long time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The change in the biomechanical system used may improve the speed of canine retraction [5][6][7][8][9][10]. In this study, the T-loop, first introduced by Burstone [11], and the dual force cuspid retractor, first described by Vyas et al [4] were compared. Both methods exhibit features like the capability of cuspid retraction with anchorage preservation, axial inclination control, rotation control, and optimum biologic response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Nandan¹,

Kumar²,

Jha³

2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant moment-to-force ratio whereas dual force cuspid retractor uses power arms on buccal as well as palatal aspects for canine retraction. Bodily tooth movement can be achieved by both methods, but in this study, our main focus was to reduce the canine retraction timing with better three-dimensional control. MethodThis split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 20 cuspids of ten patients (five male and five female). Where one side of the arch was selected for T-loop and the other side for dual force cuspid retractor, randomly. Inclusion criteria for this study were; no congenitally missing teeth (excluding third molar), class I or class II molar relationship, no previous history of orthodontic treatment, good oral periodontal status, patients in whom extraction of maxillary first premolar during treatment was indicated. Both groups were compared for the duration of canine retraction, anchorage loss; tipping, and rotation of cuspid and molar, individually, after retraction. ResultThe result of this study showed that the duration of canine retraction was significantly less in group one, i.e., dual force cuspid retractor 73.8 ± 12.38 days, than in group two, i.e., T-loop 109.4 ± 16.71 days. The anchorage loss in group one was 0.60 ± 0.61 mm and that in group two was 2.40 ± 0.87 mm. Also, the amount of tipping and rotation of the cuspid and molar individually was significantly lesser in group one than in group two. ConclusionIn this study, the dual force cuspid retractor shortens the duration of canine retraction with better threedimensional control and better anchorage preservation when compared to T-loop.

show abstract

Section: Dual Force Cuspid Retractormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%