The Angle orthodontist · 2021
Comprehensive comparison of canine retraction using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Barsoum Haya A, ElSayed Hend S, El Sharaby Fouad A, Palomo Juan Martin, Mostafa Yehya A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare canine retraction using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains comprehensively in a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The canines in 64 quadrants were randomly retracted into the first premolar extraction spaces using NiTi closed coil springs or elastomeric chains, in the maxilla and mandible. The retraction force was 150 g. Cone beam computed tomography scans and study models were obtained before the start of canine retraction and 6 months later. The rate and total amount of canine retraction, canine rotation, tipping, and root resorption were evaluated. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate patients' pain experience.
RESULTS: The two methods were statistically similar for dental changes, rate of canine retraction, and root resorption. However, patients reported significantly more days of pain with the elastomeric chain compared to the NiTi closed coil springs.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the constraints of the current study, using either NiTi closed coil springs or elastomeric chains as force delivery systems for canine retraction results in no significant difference in the rate of canine retraction, tipping, rotation, or root resorption. Pain experience during retraction using elastomeric chains is more significant yet needs further investigation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The canines in 64 quadrants were randomly retracted into the first premolar extraction spaces using NiTi closed coil springs or elastomeric chains, in the maxilla and mandible. The retraction force was 150 g. Cone beam computed tomography scans and study models were obtained before the start of canine retraction and 6 months later. The rate and total amount of canine retraction, canine rotation, tipping, and root resorption were evaluated. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate patients' pain experience.
RESULTS: The two methods were statistically similar for dental changes, rate of canine retraction, and root resorption. However, patients reported significantly more days of pain with the elastomeric chain compared to the NiTi closed coil springs.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the constraints of the current study, using either NiTi closed coil springs or elastomeric chains as force delivery systems for canine retraction results in no significant difference in the rate of canine retraction, tipping, rotation, or root resorption. Pain experience during retraction using elastomeric chains is more significant yet needs further investigation.