Objective: A vivo study was conducted to evaluate the surface roughness produced by two different methods: hand-held mechanical and air-rotor stripping and also by HORICO and Ortho-Organizer strips (Bengaluru, India), before and after polishing with 3M Sof-Lex Finishing Strips under Atomic Force Microscope. Methodology: Study included 44 proximal surfaces of extracted premolars divided into a control group and 3 experimental groups with 12 surfaces in each. Hand-held mechanical stripping was done by 40 passages of 6 cm long abrasive strips and air-rotor stripping using high-speed air-rotor turbine hand piece. Polishing was done using 3M Sof-Lex finishing strips. Reduced teeth samples were viewed under Atomic Force Microscope and the proximal strips under Confocal microscope for surface roughness. Results: Air-rotor stripping produced statistically significant more surface roughness compared to the mechanical reduction technique ( P = .01). There was no significant difference between the roughnesses produced by 2 different proximal strips. Tooth surface after IPR with polishing had less roughness compared to unpolished surface. There was no mean difference between the wear of proximal strips. Conclusion: The mechanical reduction technique of interproximal surface produces less surface roughness compared to air-rotor stripping. Polishing with 3M Sof-Lex strips after reduction irrespective of the technique and material used gives smoother surface than even normal enamel.
Growing patients with missing teeth in aesthetically prominent areas pose a challenge in restoration of the same. Fracture of anterior teeth in these age groups is very common and often requires removal of the affected tooth. After the decision to maintain the space in the dental arch is made, some other factors have to be borne in mind before restoration of the space. Continuing growth of the alveolar bones, questionable cooperation of the patient and aesthetics are deciding factors that may limit the treatment options. The effective use of mini-implants for space preservation, alveolar bone width maintenance and aesthetics represents an elective way of successfully treating such cases. The aim of this article is to describe as well as highlight the advantages and ease of the procedure with the help of two clinical cases.
<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> The effective treatment of bimaxillary protrusion needs a sound knowledge of the mechanics and expertise to control the tooth movement and the unwanted side effects. To obtain a desired finish there is a need to study and compare the mechanics used for correction of bimaxillary protrusion. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue effects of Begg and MBT mechanotherapies in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion cases.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods: </strong>In the present study, cephalometric comparison of the two mechanotherapies, Begg and MBT appliances was done retrospectively. The subjects were selected on the basis of pretreatment characteristics. The sample consisted of 40 patients (20 in each group) with an age range of 12-24 years. Pre- and post-treatment cephalograms were taken and traced on 75μm lacquered polyester acetate tracing papers using a 0.05” lead pencil.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> The present study showed that Begg and the MBT appliances were equally effective in treating bimaxillary protrusion with first premolar extraction to satisfactory end results. Treatment with both the appliances resulted in significant amount of upper and lower anterior retraction and achievement of a pleasing facial appearance and profile.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Good torque control, if used in Begg mechanotherapy will result in achieving similar treatment outcome as obtained with MBT technique.</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.