Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri
Data de Publicação: 2008
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional PUCRS
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10923/449
Resumo: The aim of this split mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canine with self-ligating "SmartClip" and conventional "Gemini" brackets. Sample complied 13 patients with Class I biprotrusion or Class II 1st division malocclusion, with an average age of 18 years and 4 months, 3 male and 10 female. All were submitted to the therapeutic extraction of two first premolars. The retraction of the upper canines was performed with elastomeric chain with 150g of force. The evaluations were performed at four times (T1 – initial, T2 – 4 weeks, T3 – 8 weeks, T4 – 12 weeks) in stone model casts. The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well anchorage loss of upper first molars were evaluated. The space closure measurement was made between canine and second premolar and rotation was assessed by an angle formed by the intersection of the line drawn through the canine’s contact points and the line of the palatal suture. The anchorage loss was measured by a guide adapted at the palatal rugae in stone casts at initial and end.The data obtained were subjected to Student t test considering level of significance of 5%. The results shown that selfligating bracket had an average of 0. 92 mm (+/- 0. 29) of rate movement and 8. 46o (+/- 4. 68) of the rotation of the upper canines and 0. 65 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss; the conventional bracket had an average of 0. 84 mm (+/- 0. 22) of rate movement and 11. 77o (+/- 3. 26) of the rotation of and the upper canines and 0. 57 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss. There was no difference (p=0. 250) in the rate of movement of the canines between the two types de brackets. The rotational control of the canines was better promoted by self-ligating bracket (p=0. 005). There was anchorage loss for both groups, with no statistical difference between them (p=0. 157).
id PUCR_8b8157dcb16dffb5ec03a102b1532a4a
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.pucrs.br:10923/449
network_acronym_str PUCR
network_name_str Repositório Institucional PUCRS
repository_id_str
spelling Mezomo, Maurício BarbieriLima, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de2011-12-27T14:14:17Z2011-12-27T14:14:17Z2008http://hdl.handle.net/10923/449The aim of this split mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canine with self-ligating "SmartClip" and conventional "Gemini" brackets. Sample complied 13 patients with Class I biprotrusion or Class II 1st division malocclusion, with an average age of 18 years and 4 months, 3 male and 10 female. All were submitted to the therapeutic extraction of two first premolars. The retraction of the upper canines was performed with elastomeric chain with 150g of force. The evaluations were performed at four times (T1 – initial, T2 – 4 weeks, T3 – 8 weeks, T4 – 12 weeks) in stone model casts. The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well anchorage loss of upper first molars were evaluated. The space closure measurement was made between canine and second premolar and rotation was assessed by an angle formed by the intersection of the line drawn through the canine’s contact points and the line of the palatal suture. The anchorage loss was measured by a guide adapted at the palatal rugae in stone casts at initial and end.The data obtained were subjected to Student t test considering level of significance of 5%. The results shown that selfligating bracket had an average of 0. 92 mm (+/- 0. 29) of rate movement and 8. 46o (+/- 4. 68) of the rotation of the upper canines and 0. 65 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss; the conventional bracket had an average of 0. 84 mm (+/- 0. 22) of rate movement and 11. 77o (+/- 3. 26) of the rotation of and the upper canines and 0. 57 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss. There was no difference (p=0. 250) in the rate of movement of the canines between the two types de brackets. The rotational control of the canines was better promoted by self-ligating bracket (p=0. 005). There was anchorage loss for both groups, with no statistical difference between them (p=0. 157).O objetivo deste ensaio clínico randomizado tipo boca dividida foi avaliar e comparar o fechamento dos espaços durante a retração dos caninos permanentes superiores com os bráquetes autoligado “SmartClip” e convencional “Gemini”. A amostra foi constituída de 13 pacientes portadores de maloclusão de Classe I com biprotrusão ou Classe II 1ª divisão de Angle, com média de idade de 18 anos e 4 meses, sendo 3 do gênero masculino e 10 do feminino. Todos os indivíduos foram submetidos à extração terapêutica dos primeiros pré-molares superiores. A retração dos caninos foi realizada através de cadeia elastomérica com força de 150g. As avaliações foram realizadas nos tempos (T1 – inicial, T2 – 4 semanas, T3 – 8 semanas, T4 – 12 semanas) através de modelos de gesso. Foram analisadas a taxa da movimentação e rotação dos caninos bem como a perda de ancoragem dos primeiros molares permanentes superiores. A mensuração do fechamento dos espaços foi realizada entre o canino e o segundo pré-molar e a rotação através do ângulo formado pela intersecção da linha que passava pelos pontos de contato dos caninos com a linha da rafe palatina mediana. A perda de ancoragem foi medida por um guia adaptado às rugas palatinas nos modelos de gesso inicial e final. Os dados obtidos foram submetidos a análise estatística através do teste t-Student considerando o nível de significância de 5%. Os resultados demonstraram que o bráquete autoligado apresentou taxa média de movimentação mensal de 0,92mm (+/- 0,29) e rotação de 8,46o (+/- 4,68) dos caninos superiores e a perda de ancoragem de 0,65mm (+/- 0,24); o bráquete convencional apresentou taxa média de movimentação mensal de 0,84mm (+/- 0,22) e rotação de 11,77o (+/- 3,26) dos caninos superiores e a perda de ancoragem de 0,57mm (+/- 0,24).Não houve diferença significativa (p=0,250) entre a taxa de movimentação dentária dos caninos entre os dois tipos de bráquetes. O controle de rotação dos caninos foi melhor promovido pelo bráquete autoligado (p=0,005). Ocorreu perda de ancoragem para ambos os grupos, sem diferença estatística entre eles (p=0,157).Made available in DSpace on 2011-12-27T14:14:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 000414875-0.pdf: 8343665 bytes, checksum: eca6520ad66453c0339e6ec79200478b (MD5) license.txt: 581 bytes, checksum: 44ea52f0b7567232681c6e3d72285adc (MD5)Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreODONTOLOGIAORTODONTIARETRAÇÃO (ODONTOLOGIA)MATERIAIS DENTÁRIOSAPARELHOS ORTODÔNTICOSRetração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionaisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do SulFaculdade de OdontologiaPrograma de Pós-Graduação em OdontologiaMestrado2008porreponame:Repositório Institucional PUCRSinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)instacron:PUC_RSinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTEXT000414875-0.pdf.txt000414875-0.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain112140repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/3/000414875-0.pdf.txtcc490cb71a2c624c6784554af30eb370MD53ORIGINAL000414875-0.pdfTexto Completoapplication/pdf8343665repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/1/000414875-0.pdfeca6520ad66453c0339e6ec79200478bMD51LICENSElicense.txttext/plain581repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/2/license.txt44ea52f0b7567232681c6e3d72285adcMD5210923/4492017-09-28 11:05:34.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ório InstitucionalPRI
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
title Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
spellingShingle Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri
ODONTOLOGIA
ORTODONTIA
RETRAÇÃO (ODONTOLOGIA)
MATERIAIS DENTÁRIOS
APARELHOS ORTODÔNTICOS
title_short Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
title_full Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
title_fullStr Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
title_full_unstemmed Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
title_sort Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
author Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri
author_facet Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mezomo, Maurício Barbieri
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Lima, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de
contributor_str_mv Lima, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv ODONTOLOGIA
ORTODONTIA
RETRAÇÃO (ODONTOLOGIA)
MATERIAIS DENTÁRIOS
APARELHOS ORTODÔNTICOS
topic ODONTOLOGIA
ORTODONTIA
RETRAÇÃO (ODONTOLOGIA)
MATERIAIS DENTÁRIOS
APARELHOS ORTODÔNTICOS
description The aim of this split mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canine with self-ligating "SmartClip" and conventional "Gemini" brackets. Sample complied 13 patients with Class I biprotrusion or Class II 1st division malocclusion, with an average age of 18 years and 4 months, 3 male and 10 female. All were submitted to the therapeutic extraction of two first premolars. The retraction of the upper canines was performed with elastomeric chain with 150g of force. The evaluations were performed at four times (T1 – initial, T2 – 4 weeks, T3 – 8 weeks, T4 – 12 weeks) in stone model casts. The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well anchorage loss of upper first molars were evaluated. The space closure measurement was made between canine and second premolar and rotation was assessed by an angle formed by the intersection of the line drawn through the canine’s contact points and the line of the palatal suture. The anchorage loss was measured by a guide adapted at the palatal rugae in stone casts at initial and end.The data obtained were subjected to Student t test considering level of significance of 5%. The results shown that selfligating bracket had an average of 0. 92 mm (+/- 0. 29) of rate movement and 8. 46o (+/- 4. 68) of the rotation of the upper canines and 0. 65 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss; the conventional bracket had an average of 0. 84 mm (+/- 0. 22) of rate movement and 11. 77o (+/- 3. 26) of the rotation of and the upper canines and 0. 57 mm (+/- 0. 24) of anchorage loss. There was no difference (p=0. 250) in the rate of movement of the canines between the two types de brackets. The rotational control of the canines was better promoted by self-ligating bracket (p=0. 005). There was anchorage loss for both groups, with no statistical difference between them (p=0. 157).
publishDate 2008
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2008
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2011-12-27T14:14:17Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2011-12-27T14:14:17Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10923/449
url http://hdl.handle.net/10923/449
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional PUCRS
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)
instacron:PUC_RS
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)
instacron_str PUC_RS
institution PUC_RS
reponame_str Repositório Institucional PUCRS
collection Repositório Institucional PUCRS
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/3/000414875-0.pdf.txt
repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/1/000414875-0.pdf
repositorio.pucrs.br/jspui/bitstream/10923/449/2/license.txt
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv cc490cb71a2c624c6784554af30eb370
eca6520ad66453c0339e6ec79200478b
44ea52f0b7567232681c6e3d72285adc
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1731736511850741760