Changes over time in canine retraction: An implant study

Evaluation of canine retraction following periodontal distraction using NiTi coil spring and implants – A clinical study

“…21 In studies where implant supported canine retraction was done, mean value were 4.29 mm in maxilla in 4e6 months 7 and 3.2 mm over 8 week. 22 The result of the present study was higher compared to the above mentioned studies; the reason for above finding can be explained by the fact that the force level was maintained in our study by monthly activation. In the present study, it was found that the mandibular canines were retracted 5.37 mm in the Group II and 3.96 mm in the Group I over the period of 3 months.…”

“…In studies 3,4 where intraoral distractors were used, amount of canine retraction was much higher compared to the present study. In a study by Thiruvenkatachari et al 7 mean distal movement of canine was found to be 4.10 mm in 4e6 months, and in a study by Martins et al, 22 the mandibular canine cusp tip was retracted 3.8 mm over 8 week from miniscrew placed for anchorage. These values are similar to the Group I of our study, where periodontal distraction was not done.…”

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

“…Because of binding, short periods of assessment may not detect the brackets' real influence on teeth displacement rates [27,28]. The tooth displacement rate may be modified over treatment time due to the extension of hyalinized areas generated [29][30][31] and to the resistance offered by periodontal tissues that can vary during tooth displacement [32]. Few clinical trials in human samples assessing lower canine retraction are found in literature.…”

“…The studies found report a great variability on lower canine displacement rates. The rates ranged from 0.2 mm/ month [33] to 1.9 mm/month [31]. Although different biological and biomechanical factors can be related to this variability, the sample size can also influence on the results [31,34].…”

Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro

“…En masse retraction studies have traditionally evaluated rates of tooth movement in vivo, relying on cephalometric measurements 10,11 and dental cast measurements 12,13 with applied forces being measured via force gauges. 14 Due to the inherent difficulty in accurate force measurements in vivo, studies using in vitro or numerical methods are considered.…”