The Angle orthodontist · 2022
Evaluation of the rate of anterior segment retraction in orthodontic patients with bimaxillary protrusion using friction vs frictionless mechanics: a single-center, single-blind randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tawfik Monica Guirguis Youssif, Izzat Bakhit Dorra M H D, El Sharaby Fouad A, Moustafa Yehya A, Dehis Heba Mohamed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of friction vs frictionless mechanics on the rate of anterior segment retraction (ASR) in patients with bimaxillary protrusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty females (18.3 ± 3.7 years) with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated into the friction group, using elastomeric power chains, and the frictionless group, using T-loop springs for ASR. Eligibility criteria included absence of skeletal discrepancies and any systemic diseases or medications, among others. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. Opaque sealed envelopes were sequentially numbered for allocation concealment. Only blinding of the outcome assessor was applicable. Activations were done every 4 weeks until completion of ASR. The primary outcome was the rate of ASR measured on digital models. Anchorage loss, molar rotation, and pain experienced were also assessed.
RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow-up. The rate of ASR was 0.68 ± 0.18 mm/mo in the friction group vs 0.88 ± 0.27 mm/mo in the frictionless group, with no significant difference. A significant difference in anchorage loss of 1.63 mm and molar rotation of 7.06° was observed, being higher in the frictionless group. A comparable pain experience associated with both mechanics was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rate of ASR or pain experience was observed between friction and frictionless mechanics. However, extra anchorage measures should be considered when using frictionless mechanics as greater anchorage loss and molar rotations are anticipated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty females (18.3 ± 3.7 years) with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated into the friction group, using elastomeric power chains, and the frictionless group, using T-loop springs for ASR. Eligibility criteria included absence of skeletal discrepancies and any systemic diseases or medications, among others. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. Opaque sealed envelopes were sequentially numbered for allocation concealment. Only blinding of the outcome assessor was applicable. Activations were done every 4 weeks until completion of ASR. The primary outcome was the rate of ASR measured on digital models. Anchorage loss, molar rotation, and pain experienced were also assessed.
RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow-up. The rate of ASR was 0.68 ± 0.18 mm/mo in the friction group vs 0.88 ± 0.27 mm/mo in the frictionless group, with no significant difference. A significant difference in anchorage loss of 1.63 mm and molar rotation of 7.06° was observed, being higher in the frictionless group. A comparable pain experience associated with both mechanics was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rate of ASR or pain experience was observed between friction and frictionless mechanics. However, extra anchorage measures should be considered when using frictionless mechanics as greater anchorage loss and molar rotations are anticipated.