A comparison of orthodontic elastic forces: Focus on reduced inventory

Mansour, Ameerah Y

doi:10.4103/jos.jos_58_17

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, he evaluated activation lengths varying between 15 mm and 60 mm for the force measurements in dry condition. Mansour [8] calculated the mean distances from canine to the first molar and from canine to the second molar to base his experiments to the clinical scenario and he evaluated the force degradation of the elastics at the mean canine-molar distances. In the present study, we measured the force levels at four different stretching lengths referring to former studies: 2 times of the lumen size (9.52 mm), 3 times of the lumen size (14.2 mm), the mean distance between upper canine and upper first molar (22.3 mm), and the mean distance between upper canine and upper second molar (38.7 mm).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9,11] e previous studies suggested that these differences may have been due to the dimensional differences such as cross-sectional area and the inner diameter of the elastics. [12][13][14] Mansour [8] measured the force level of elastics from three different manufacturers at three different activation length and reported similarly a large variation in force. Other than the dimensional differences, the authors suggested that the reason for this variation may be the lack of standardization in the manufacturing process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ese findings are in harmony with the results of the study by Mansour. [8] Former studies compared the forces generated with elastics with those indicated on the packages by the manufacturers and there are conflicting results. Many studies reported that the generated forces were higher than the force levels defined on the packs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fifty specimens from each elastic type were randomly selected and the force levels were measured with a force gauge (GD-30 Dynamometer Gauge Dial 40-350 g, Jonard Tools, New York, USA) by stretching elastics at specific distances: Stretching to 2 times of the lumen size (9.52 mm), stretching to 3 times of the lumen size (14.2 mm), and stretching to the mean distance between upper canine and upper first molar (22.3 mm), stretching to the mean distance between upper canine and upper second molar (38.7 mm). [8] ese measurements were performed in dry environment at room temperature (24°C). Each measurement was repeated 3 times by the same operator and the average value was recorded for each elastic specimen and the mean force value was calculated for each group at different distances.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e most common usage of the intermaxillary elastics is between the canines to the first molars and this distance is reported to be 22.3 mm. [8] Ten elastics, which provided a similar force to the mean force level for 22.3 mm stretching distance, were selected. After the force measurements for specimen selection, the elastics were stretched by 22.3 mm with the help of a custom-made set-up [Figure 1].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Do we know how much force we apply with latex intermaxillary elastics?

Yılmaz

Kara

Şeker

et al. 2021

APOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of our study was to evaluate the variation of the forces provided by different branded elastics and to compare the force diminution that occurs after 24-h of use in wet environment. Materials and Methods: Elastics from four different manufacturer (American Orthodontics [AO], USA; Dentaurum [DENT], Germany; Ormco, USA; RMO, USA) with 3/16-inch (4.8 mm) lumen diameter, and two different force degrees (medium/heavy) were included in the study with a total of eight groups of elastics. First force measurements were performed with 50 elastics of each group at various stretching distances; lumen diameter ×2 (9.52 mm), ×3 (14.28 mm), the average canine-first molar length (22.3 mm), and the canine-second molar length (38.7 mm) under room temperature and dry air conditions. In addition, ten the elastics from each group were stretched at 22.3 mm distance in a custom-made plate and kept in 37°C distilled water. Twenty-four hours later, the force measurements were repeated. Results: Regardless of the brand and type (medium-heavy), all the tested elastics showed variations in matter of generated forces at different stretching distances. The variation amount increased as the length of elongation increased. The lowest standard deviation values were observed for both medium and heavy DENT elastic groups. When stretched to 3 times of their lumen size, the medium and heavy elastics both produced either lower or higher forces compared to the levels of force indicated by the manufacturers. The closest mean force to the force level stated by the manufacturer was provided with medium AO (3.6 g difference) elastics and heavy RMO counterparts (7.9 g difference). A significant 20–23% reduction of force was observed in all brands, both in medium and heavy elastics after passing 24-h in aqueous environment. No significant difference was observed in matter of force degradation between groups for both medium and heavy elastics (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The forces exerted by intermaxillary elastics were not found to be standard and the force stated on the package is not always provided precisely. A significant force loss around 20% was observed with all the elastics after 24-h of use in wet environment at 37°C.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%