Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512012000300017 |
Resumo: | OBJECTIVE: To mechanically evaluate different systems used for canine retraction. METHODS: Three different methods for partial canine retraction were evaluated: retraction with elastic chain directly attached to bracket; elastic chain connected to bracket hook and with sliding jig activated with the aid of an elastic chain attached to a mini-implant. For this evaluation, a Typodont was adapted to simulate the desired movements when exposed to a heat source. After obtaining the measurements of the movements, statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mini-implant/sliding jig system (Groups M 0.018-in and M 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored less extrusion and distal inclination of the canines in the retraction stage (p < 0.005). Meanwhile, the retraction system with elastic chain directly attached to the orthodontic brackets (Groups C 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored greater inclination and extrusion than the others, followed by the system of elastic chain attached to the hook (Groups G 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in). CONCLUSIONS: Canine retraction with the mini-implant/sliding jig system showed the best mechanical control. The worst results were observed with a 0.018 archwire when the elastic chain was attached to the bracket. |
id |
DPI-1_29d2c10e03f68d0e3f2b996477f5cd44 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2176-94512012000300017 |
network_acronym_str |
DPI-1 |
network_name_str |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retractionCorrective OrthodonticsCanine toothMalocclusionOBJECTIVE: To mechanically evaluate different systems used for canine retraction. METHODS: Three different methods for partial canine retraction were evaluated: retraction with elastic chain directly attached to bracket; elastic chain connected to bracket hook and with sliding jig activated with the aid of an elastic chain attached to a mini-implant. For this evaluation, a Typodont was adapted to simulate the desired movements when exposed to a heat source. After obtaining the measurements of the movements, statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mini-implant/sliding jig system (Groups M 0.018-in and M 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored less extrusion and distal inclination of the canines in the retraction stage (p < 0.005). Meanwhile, the retraction system with elastic chain directly attached to the orthodontic brackets (Groups C 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored greater inclination and extrusion than the others, followed by the system of elastic chain attached to the hook (Groups G 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in). CONCLUSIONS: Canine retraction with the mini-implant/sliding jig system showed the best mechanical control. The worst results were observed with a 0.018 archwire when the elastic chain was attached to the bracket.Dental Press International2012-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512012000300017Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.17 n.3 2012reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/S2176-94512012000300017info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRuellas,Antônio Carlos de OliveiraPithon,Matheus MeloSantos,Rogério Lacerda doseng2012-08-16T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512012000300017Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2012-08-16T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
title |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
spellingShingle |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction Ruellas,Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Corrective Orthodontics Canine tooth Malocclusion |
title_short |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
title_full |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
title_fullStr |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
title_sort |
Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour of different devices for canine retraction |
author |
Ruellas,Antônio Carlos de Oliveira |
author_facet |
Ruellas,Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Pithon,Matheus Melo Santos,Rogério Lacerda dos |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Pithon,Matheus Melo Santos,Rogério Lacerda dos |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Ruellas,Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Pithon,Matheus Melo Santos,Rogério Lacerda dos |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Corrective Orthodontics Canine tooth Malocclusion |
topic |
Corrective Orthodontics Canine tooth Malocclusion |
description |
OBJECTIVE: To mechanically evaluate different systems used for canine retraction. METHODS: Three different methods for partial canine retraction were evaluated: retraction with elastic chain directly attached to bracket; elastic chain connected to bracket hook and with sliding jig activated with the aid of an elastic chain attached to a mini-implant. For this evaluation, a Typodont was adapted to simulate the desired movements when exposed to a heat source. After obtaining the measurements of the movements, statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mini-implant/sliding jig system (Groups M 0.018-in and M 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored less extrusion and distal inclination of the canines in the retraction stage (p < 0.005). Meanwhile, the retraction system with elastic chain directly attached to the orthodontic brackets (Groups C 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in) favored greater inclination and extrusion than the others, followed by the system of elastic chain attached to the hook (Groups G 0.018-in and 0.019 x 0.026-in). CONCLUSIONS: Canine retraction with the mini-implant/sliding jig system showed the best mechanical control. The worst results were observed with a 0.018 archwire when the elastic chain was attached to the bracket. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512012000300017 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512012000300017 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S2176-94512012000300017 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press International |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press International |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.17 n.3 2012 reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics instname:Dental Press International (DPI) instacron:DPI |
instname_str |
Dental Press International (DPI) |
instacron_str |
DPI |
institution |
DPI |
reponame_str |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
collection |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
artigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com |
_version_ |
1754122395976728576 |