Retração de caninos superiores com bráquetes autoligados e convencionais
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |