A CAD-CAM Evaluation of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Two Different Modalities with MBT Prescription-An In Vivo Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2015.03.01.4Keywords:
CAD-CAM, Microimplants, Canine retraction.Abstract
Objective: (1) To measure and compare the amount of maxillary canine retraction.
(2) To compare the rate of maxillary canine retraction.
Materials and Methods: This was a split mouth design study to compare the amount of maxillary canine retraction using two different modalities. The two modalities of maxillary canine retraction were conventional mechanics with E-chain extending from molar to maxillary canine on one side and the other modality was using orthodontic microimplants loaded with E-chain to the maxillary canine. The sample comprised 15 patients (9 male, 6 female, mean age 19.8 years; range 16-25 years) who were scheduled for extraction of all the upper first premolar. A brass wire guide and a peri-apical radiograph were used to determine the microimplant position. Titanium orthodontic microimplants 1.3 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length were placed between the roots of the second premolar and the first molar of the maxillary arch. After 15 days, the microimplants and the molars were loaded with continuous elastomeric chains expressing 150 grams for canine retraction. Pre-retraction and post-retraction study models were taken for measuring the amount of retraction. Study models were scanned and assessed using CAD-CAM.
Results: The total space closure on the molar anchor side was 4.62 mm (1.1 mm contributed by mesial molar movement) and microimplant anchor side was 4.12 mm. The rate of canine retraction on the molar anchor was 1.07 mm/month and 0.91 mm/month on the microimplant anchor side.
Conclusion: The amount and rate of canine retraction is similar when proceeded with a conventional or a microimplant supported canine retraction.
References
Eberting JJ, Straja SR and Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 228-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x
Alexanders Discipline - A Simple Decision 2009.
Roth RH. Treatment mechanics for the straight wire appliance In: Graber TM, Vanarssall RL, eds. Orthodontics, Current Principles and Techniques. 2nd ed. St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby; 1994: 685-711.
Samuels RH and rudgew. A comparison of space closure using a nickel titanium spring and an elastic module: a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 103: 464-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81798-6
Kazuo Hayashi1, Jun Uechi, Masaru Murata and Itaru Mizoguchi. Comparison of maxillary canine retraction with sliding mechanics and a retraction spring: a threedimensional analysis based on a midpalatal orthodontic implant. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 585-589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.6.585
Alev Çetinşahin, Mufide Dinçer , Ayca Arman-ozcırpıcı and Sina Uckan. Effects of the zygoma anchorage system on canine retraction. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 505-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp167
Anthony Louis Maganzini, Alan M Wong and Mairaj K Ahmed. Forces of Various Nickel Titanium Closed Coil Springs. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 182-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/011509-592.1
V Dixon, MJF Read, KD O'Brien, HV Worthington and NA Mandall. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod 2002; 29: 31-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ortho/29.1.31
Sonis AL. Comparison of NiTi coil springs vs. elastics in canine retraction. J Clin Orthod 1994; 28: 293-5.
Hyo-Sang Park, Tae-Geon Kwon. Sliding Mechanics with Microscrew Implant Anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 703- 710.
McLaughlin RP and Benett J. Controlled space closure with a preadusted edgewise appliance system. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24: 251-260.
Joon-No Rhee and Youn-Sic Chun Joon Row. A comparison between friction and frictionless mechanics with a new typodont simulation system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119: 292-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.112452
Baccetti T and Franchi L. Friction produced by types of elastomeric ligatures in treatment mechanics with the preadjusted appliance. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 211-216.
Hain M, Dhopatkar A and Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 666-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.021
Khambay B, Millett D and McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 327-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.3.327
Farrant SD. An evaluation of different methods of canine retraction. Br J orthod 1977; 4: 5-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/bjo.4.1.5
Ziegler P and Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 95-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0
Staggers JA and Germane N. Clinical considerations in the use of retraction mechanics. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25: 364- 369.
Burstone CJ and Koeing HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod 1974; 65: 58-66.
Frank CA and Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistance s between orthodontic bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980; 78: 593-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90199-2
Vaughan JL, Duncanson Jr MG , Nanda RS and Currier GF. Relative kinetic frictional forces between sintered stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 20-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70153-2
Storey E and Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust J Dent 1952; 56: 13.
Robert S Quinn and D Ken Yoshikawa. A reassessment of force magnitude in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1985; 88: 252-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(85)90220-9
Boester CH and Johnston LE. A clinical investigation of the concepts of differential and optimum force in canine retraction. Angle Orthod 1974; 44: 113-119.
Iwasaki L, Haack JE, Nickel JC and Morton J. Human tooth movement in response to continuous stress of low magnitude. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 175- 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70229-0
Ricketts RM. Development of retraction sections. Foundations of Orthodontic Research Newsletter 1974; 5: 41-4.
Lee BW. Relationship between tooth-movement rate and estimated pressure applied. J Dent Res 1965; 44: 1053. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345650440051001
Park HS. Clinical study on success rate of microscrew implants for orthodontic anchorage. Korean J Orthod 2003; 33: 151-6.
Badri Thiruvenkatachari, A Pavithranand, K Rajasigamani and Hee Moon Kyung. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 30-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.044
