Evaluating the Amount of Tooth Movement and Root Resorption during Canine Retraction with Friction versus Frictionless Mechanics Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.066Keywords:
Canine retraction, Sliding mechanics, Sectional mechanics, NiTi coil spring, T-loop, Friction mechanics, Frictionless mechanicsAbstract
BACKGROUND: The current study was carried out to compare the amount of tooth movement during canine retraction comparing two different retraction mechanics; friction mechanics represented by a NiTi closed coil spring versus frictionless mechanics represented by T - loop, and their effect on root resorption using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).
METHOD: Ten patients were selected in a split-mouth study design that had a malocclusion that necessitates the extraction of maxillary first premolars and retraction of maxillary canines. The right maxillary canines were retracted using T - loops fabricated from 0.017 X 0.025 TMA wires. The left maxillary canines received NiTi coil spring with 150 gm of retraction force. Pre retraction and post retraction Cone Beam Computed Tomography were taken to evaluate the amount of tooth movement and root resorption using three-dimensional planes.
RESULTS: T - loop side showed statistically significant higher mean anteroposterior measurement than NiTi coil spring side, indicating a lower amount of canine movement pre and post a canine retraction. Concerning the root resorption, there was no statistically significant change in the mean measurements of canine root length post retraction.
CONCLUSION: The NiTi coil spring side showed more distal movement more than the T-loop side. Both retraction mechanics with controlled retraction force, do not cause root resorption.Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Licciardello V. Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in non growing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:211-216. https://doi.org/10.2319/010709-16.1 PMid:19852663
Reznikov N, Har-Zion G, Barkana I, Abed Y, Redlich M. Measurement of friction forces between stainless steel wires and "reduced-friction" self ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:330-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.025 PMid:20816303
Boester CH, Johnston LE. A clinical investigation of the concepts of differential optimal force in canine retraction. Angle Orthod. 1974; 44: 113-9. PMid:4597626
Gjessing P. Biomechanical design and clinical evaluation of a new canine retraction spring. Am J Orthod. 1985; 87:353-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90195-2
Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod.1989; 95:99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0
Drescher D, Bourauel Ch, Schumacher H A. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96:397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90324-7
Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher H A. Optimization of arch guided tooth movement by the use of uprighting springs. Eur J Orthod. 1990; 12:346-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/12.3.346 PMid:2401343
Nightingale C, Jones SP. A clinical investigation of force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2003; 30:229-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.229 PMid:14530421
Dixon V, Read MJF, O'Brien KD, Worthington HV, and Mandall NA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2002; 29:31-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/29.1.31 PMid:11907307
Nightingale C, Jones SP. A clinical investigation of force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2003; 30:229-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.229 PMid:14530421
Ghoneim M. Three dimensional evaluation of the effects of skeletally anchored Haas expander. M.Sc Thesis. Cairo University, 2010.
. Nanda R. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. 1st ed. W.B. Saunders company, 1997: 166-167.
Marcotte MR. Biomechanics in orthodontics. 1st ed. B.C Decker Inc. 1990: 63-65.
Thiesen G., Rego MV, Menezes LM, Shimizu RH. Force systems yielded by different designs of T: loop. Aust J Orthod. 2005; 21:103-110.
Keng FY, Quick AN, Swain MV, Herbison P. A comparison of space closure rates between preactivated nickel–titanium and titanium–molybdenum alloy T-loops: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:33–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq156 PMid:21415288
Samuels RHA, Rodge SJ, Mair LH. A comparison of the rate of space closure using a nickel-titanium spring and an elastic module: A clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 464-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81798-6
Eid F. A comparative study to reveal the effects of different orthodontic force magnitudes during canine retraction. D.D.S Thesis, Cairo University, 1988.
Storey E, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust Dent J. 1952; 56:11-18.
Lotzof LP, Fine HA, Cisneros GJ. Canine retraction: a comparison of two preadjusted bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110:191-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70108-7
Ren Y, Maltha JC, Jagtman AM, Optimum Force Magnitude for Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Literature Review. Angle Orthodontist. 2003; 73:86-92. PMid:12607860
Hayashi K, Uechi J, Murata M, Mizoguchi I. Comparison of maxillary canine retraction with sliding mechanics and a retraction spring: a three-dimensional analysis based on a midpalatal orthodontic implant. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26: 585-589. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.6.585 PMid:15650067
Brusveen EM, Brudvik P, Bøe OE, Mavragani M. Apical root resorption of incisors after orthodontic treatment of impacted maxillary canines: a radiographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):427-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.022 PMid:22464524
Perona G, Wenzel A. Radiographic evaluation of the effect of orthodontic retraction on the root of the maxillary canine. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1996; 25(4):179-85. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.25.4.9084270 PMid:9084270
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
