Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets

Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri; Lima, Eduardo S de; Menezes, Luciane Macedo de; Weissheimer, André; Allgayer, Susiane

doi:10.2319/062510-348.1

Cited by 70 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are used to deliver continuous light forces during sliding mechanics in diastema closure (6), rotational correction, and mainly during canine retraction after premolar extraction (7,8). When stretched and exposed to the oral environment, the chains may absorb humidity and suffer a breakdown of internal bonds, which leads to permanent deformation (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In situ evaluation of orthodontic elastomeric chains

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis tested in this study was that intraoral exposure of elastomeric chains alters their tensile strength. For such purpose, it was evaluated the in situ behavior of different elastomeric chains stretched for 3 weeks. Three kinds of elastomeric chains, Plastic chain (PC), Memory chain (MC) and Super slick chain (SSC), were randomly placed in 3 quadrants of 13 patient in a fixed distance of 16 mm and mean initial force of 180 g. Tensile testing was performed in an universal testing machine at different intervals: initial, 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, 2 weeks and 3 weeks. A two-way ANOVA test was performed to identify the influence of both material and time on the force decrease. A subsequent one-way ANOVA test with the Tukey's post hoc test was used to identify statistically significant intragroup and intergroup remaining force (g and %) differences at 5% significance level. The effect of both the material and the time factors were significant. All groups showed significant force decrease after the 1-h period (23% for PC and 14% for MC and SSC). At the end of the 3-week period, the remaining force was 57% (96 g), 67% (129 g) and 71% (125 g) for PC, MC and SSC, respectively. In conclusion, intraoral exposure of elastomeric chains altered their tensile strength. In general, the greater force decrease occurred within the first hour. The remaining force of the enhanced chains measured at each time interval was greater than the conventional one (PC). After 3 weeks, only the enhanced chains maintained the force applied over 100 g.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In situ evaluation of orthodontic elastomeric chains

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent reports showed that self-ligating brackets do not provide better anchorage control, especially with respect to less friction, which is believed to be obtained with self-ligating bracket systems. [4][5][6][7][8][9] The TPA has been widely used in orthodontics either with continuous or segmented arch mechanics to minimize anchorage loss and/or control rotation of the upper first molars. 1,3,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Although TPA has been shown not to improve anchorage control during space closure, many clinicians still believe that the TPA alone can control anchorage during space closure in orthodontic extraction cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq

Alkhadra

El‐Bialy

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare anchorage condition in cases in which transpalatal arch was used to enhance anchorage in both continuous and segmented arch techniques. Materials and Methods: Twenty cases that required first premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment and transpalatal arch to enhance anchorage were included in this study. Ten cases were treated using the continuous arch technique, while the other 10 cases were treated using 0.019 3 0.025-inch TMA T-loops with posterior anchorage bend according to the Burstone and Marcotte description. Lateral cephalometric analysis of before and after canine retraction was performed using Ricketts analysis to measure the anteroposterior position of the upper first molar to the vertical line from the Pt point. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test.Results: There was a statistically significant forward movement of the upper first molar in cases treated by continuous arch mechanics (4.5 6 3.0 mm) compared with segmented arch mechanics (20.7 6 1.4 mm; P 5 .01). Conclusions:The posterior anchorage bend to T-loop used to retract the maxillary canine can enhance anchorage during maxillary canine retraction. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:380-385.)

show abstract

“…However, the sample size was small, and the possibility that any true difference could be obscured in a split-mouth design should be considered. In a very recent study, Mezomo et al, 2011, conducted a randomized clinical trial to measure space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canines after first premolar extraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. In a random split-mouth design, the retraction of upper canines was performed using an elastomeric chain with 150 g of force.…”

Section: Orthodontic Space Closurementioning

confidence: 99%