Effect of arch wire size on orthodontic reverse closing loop and retraction force in canine tooth distalization

Büyük, Süleyman Kutalmış; Güler, Mehmet Sami; Bekci, Muhammed Latif

doi:10.1007/s00056-018-0161-1

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A controlled tooth movement is always the goal of an orthodontist especially during the phase of canine retraction. De-pending upon the relationship of the line of action of the force to the center of resistance of the tooth, prediction of tooth movement in the three planes of space is possible [10][11][12][13] . Therefore, to preserve supporting tissues and prevent dental trauma and resorption, in addition to performing the treatment in a predictable way and within a shorter period of time, in both cases we decided to extract the first premolars to ensure the proper positioning of the maxillary canines in the dental arch.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For incisor intrusion and canine retraction with elastomeric chains in order to prevent incisor bite deepening we used 0.017 × 0.025 Connecticut intrusion arch and 0.019 x 0.025 stainless steel as base archwire7. We ligated and tied the intrusion arch at the lateral incisors and between the central incisors to prevent the loss of distal anchorage and to prevent the extrusive force generated on the incisors when the canine retraction was done 11 . Molar relation was corrected by light Class II elastics.…”

Section: Treatment Plan and Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Straight wire and segmented technique in canine retraction-case reports

Trpevska¹,

Tanatarec

Srbinoska

et al. 2022

Arch Pub Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correct positioning of the canines after their retraction is of great importance for the function, stability and esthetics. Aim: Two case reports were presented to compare the efficiency of two techniques for canine retraction, segmented mechanics using 0.017 x 0.025 TMA T-loop vs sliding straight-wire mechanics usingelastomeric chains. Material and methods: The first case describes orthodontic treatment with 0.017 x 0.025 TMA T-loop whereas the second case describes a 9 mm canine retraction using elastomeric chains. Results: Depending on the type of malocclusion both techniques for canine retraction can be used. Post treatment results showed canine retraction with good anchorage control and no mesial movement of the molars.Conclusion: Both techniques provide an optimum rate of tooth movement and none of the methods can be considered superior in terms of tooth movement or side effects, including rotation, tipping, root resorption, anchorage loss, as well as associated pain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Plan and Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straight wire and segmented technique in canine retraction-case reports

Trpevska¹,

Tanatarec

Srbinoska

et al. 2022

Arch Pub Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e loading was based on displacing the orthodontic wire during controlled buccal movement of 1.0 mm. [12,13] e required results were: e displacement tendency (total deformation) based on the fulcrum point of the tooth during orthodontic movement, [14] microdeformation in bone tissue, [15] minimum and maximum principal stress for the periodontal ligament, [16] minimum and maximum principal stress for the tooth root, [17] von Mises stress for orthodontic wire, [18] and maximum principal stress for the adhesive interface of the composite resin bracket. [19] In addition to the stress distribution maps, the maximum values of each analysis were plotted for quantitative comparison.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the bracketless orthodontics technique and resin composite material on the biomechanical response of the upper central incisor: 3D finite element analysis

Junior

Neto

Prieto

et al. 2021

APOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The bracketless orthodontic treatment (BOT) is an alternative technique which indicates using an orthodontic appliance composed of wires and composite resin assisted by 3D technology. However, the biomechanical response of central incisor orthodontic movement has yet to be investigated. Thus, the aim of the present investigation was to calculate the stress magnitude in central incisor movement through 3D finite element analysis using different wire diameters (0.012”, 0.014”, and 0.016”) of nickel–titanium wire and two different resin composites (Opallis and Filtek). Materials and Methods: A 3D volume composed of enamel, dentin, cortical bone, cancellous bone, periodontal ligament, composite resin, and different orthodontic wire diameters was designed. After the modeling process, the models were exported to computer-aided engineering software divided into a finite number of elements, and a mechanical structural static analysis was conducted. Results: The stress results were plotted on colorimetric maps and in tables for comparison between the different models. The results showed that the central incisor orthodontic movement with BOT does not induce damage to the periodontal ligament, dental root, or bone tissue, regardless of the simulated orthodontic wire diameter and resin composite materials. The palatal composite resin and orthodontic wire also presented acceptable stress magnitude during orthodontic movement. Conclusion: Thus, the BOT technique promoted a suitable biomechanical response during central incisor movement regardless the resin composite.

show abstract

“…The required results were: The displacement tendency based on the point of the tooth's fulcrum during orthodontic movement (Knop et al, 2015), microstrain in bone tissue (Frost 1994), minimum and maximum principal stress for the periodontal ligament (de Paula et al, 2018;da Rocha et al, 2021), minimum and maximum principal stress for the dental root (Dal Piva et al, 2018), von-Mises stress for the orthodontic wire (Buyuk et al, 2019) and maximum principal stress for the adhesive interface of the composite resin bracket (Tribst et al, 2019). In addition to the colorimetric maps of stress distribution, the peaks of each analysis criterion were plotted for quantitative comparison.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%