A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial

Monini, André da Costa; Júnior, Luiz Gonzaga Gandini; Vianna, Alexandre Protásio; Martins, Renato Parsekian

doi:10.1007/s00784-016-1855-7

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We cannot find enough data dealing with the acceleration rate of lower canine movements. However, our results could be compared to the results found by Aslan et al (39) who reported a lower canine retraction rate ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 mm/month and Monini et al (40) who found the rate of canine retraction in lower canine was 0.54 mm/month for SLB and 0.60 mm/month for CB.…”

Section: Table (2) Comparison Between the Four Studied Groups Accordi...supporting

confidence: 62%

Comparison of Upper and Lower Canine Retraction Rates Assisted by Flapless Laser Corticotomy.

BAKR,

Nadim,

Elkadi

2024

Dental Science Updates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: One of the most frequent issues in extraction cases is the prolonged duration of orthodontic therapy and the slow rate of canine retraction. Aim: This secondary analysis study aimed to compare the rate of canine retraction in upper and lower canines facilitated with Flapless Laser corticotomy (FLC). Materials and Methods: The study included 56 canines from 14 patients (2 males /12 females) with a mean age of (20.4±2.5) years diagnosed with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and treated with 4 premolars extraction with upper and lower fixed appliances. The intervention was applied in a split-mouth fashion, so before commencing the study, 2 random computer-generated lists with a 1:1 allocation ratio were obtained to detect the side of intervention, these lists were concealed in opaque envelopes until the time of intervention. All participants were allocated into 2 groups, I-(Maxillary canines: which were divided into two subgroups A. Control, B. FLC) and II-(Mandibular canines: which were divided into two subgroups A. Control B. FLC). FLC was applied on the experimental sides before canine retraction by performing 6 holes with 3 mm of depth into the alveolar bone on both mesial and distal sides of all canines, then canines' retraction was performed using closed-coil springs to obtain a force of 150 gm while anchorage was augmented indirectly with TADs. The rate of canine retraction was assessed at T0, T1, T2, and T3 (just before, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after retraction), using 3-Dimentional digital casts. Only the statistical analysis expert was blinded. Results: The results showed a statistically non-significant difference between all groups (upper and lower flapless laser corticotomy and control) in the change in canine retraction distance and monthly rate of Canine retraction. Conclusion: There were neither statistically nor clinically significant differences between upper and lower canine retraction rates either by conventional method or assisted by FLC performed in this study.

show abstract

Section: Table (2) Comparison Between the Four Studied Groups Accordi...supporting

confidence: 62%

Comparison of Upper and Lower Canine Retraction Rates Assisted by Flapless Laser Corticotomy.

BAKR,

Nadim,

Elkadi

2024

Dental Science Updates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En cuanto a las etapas del tratamiento ortodóncico, en la alineación y nivelación no existirían diferencias significativas entre los distintos tipos de aparatos fijos (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33) . Al evaluar la pérdida de anclaje no se encontró evidencia significativa que muestre alguna diferencia entre los distintos tipos de brackets, lo mismo al compararlos en el cierre de espacios (24,(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46) . En relación con la expresión de torque, los brackets convencionales tienen mejores resultados al compararlos con los brackets de autoligado (16,47,48) y por último, al analizar la expansión transversal no existe evidencia que muestre una superioridad de brackets de autoligado comparado con brackets convencionales (33,46,(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57) .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Se comparó la pérdida de anclaje entre brackets convencionales y de autoligado pasivos, concluyendo que no existe diferencia en la pérdida de anclaje entre ambos (34) . Similares resultados se obtuvieron en varios estudios al comparar brackets de autoligado con brackets convencionales (35)(36)(37)(38)(39) . Las revisiones sistemáticas en relación con este aspecto concluyen que, tanto los brackets convencionales como los de autoligado, mostraron la misma pérdida de anclaje (40) y que no se encontró evidencia que sugiriera que existe una diferencia significativa entre brackets convencionales y autoligados (41) .…”

Section: Pérdida De Anclajeunclassified

“…Los estudios muestran que no se observa ventaja alguna para los brackets de autoligado en esta fase (24) y que al comparar ambos sistemas de autoligado con brackets convencionales (35)(36)(37)(38) , se observó la misma tasa de retracción canina. Al comparar brackets de autoligado pasivo con brackets convencionales ligados con ligaduras metálicas en cuanto al rango de cierre de espacio en masa, se observó que no existían diferencias significativas en la cantidad de milímetros en que se cerraban los espacios al mes (42,43,44) .…”

Section: Cierre De Espaciosunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparación de Brackets de Autoligado y Brackets Convencionales basada en la evidencia

Souper

Yaber

Aguilar

et al. 2021

odonto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monini et al . [ 36 37 ] employed a vertical reference line perpendicular to the occlusal plane on both sides of oblique lateral cephalometric radiographs. The canine movement was indicated by the horizontal distance between the vertical reference line and the canine cusp point.…”

Section: Methods Of Measuring Distal Canine Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation- A review

Nahidh¹,

Yassir²

2023

J Orthodont Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of the various methods for measuring distal canine movement and rotation during retraction. Various databases, including PubMed Central, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, the Cochrane Library, Textbooks, Google Scholar, and Research Gate, and a manual search up until September 2022, were used to search for various methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation during retraction. After excluding the duplicate articles, the papers explaining these techniques were included. Four significant techniques were identified. The digital method with 3D superimposition is the safest, most accurate, and most accessible of the methods reviewed.

show abstract

A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial

Abstract: Using self-ligating brackets to retract lower canines will not increase the velocity of tooth movement, does not increase anchorage, and does not decrease tipping.

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Comparison of Upper and Lower Canine Retraction Rates Assisted by Flapless Laser Corticotomy.

Comparison of Upper and Lower Canine Retraction Rates Assisted by Flapless Laser Corticotomy.

Comparación de Brackets de Autoligado y Brackets Convencionales basada en la evidencia

Methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation- A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About