Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2018
Evaluating the Amount of Tooth Movement and Root Resorption during Canine Retraction with Friction versus Frictionless Mechanics Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Makhlouf Mohamed, Aboul-Ezz Amr, Fayed Mona Salah, Hafez Hend
Аннотация
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.
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.