title: Are there differences on tooth movement between different sectional canine retractors?
abstract: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two retraction springs, demonstrating differences in reactivation and constancy of force, on tooth movement during canine distalization. Upper and lower canines of 16 patients (9 females, 7 males; mean age 14.6±1.7 years) with Angle Class I or II malocclusion were included in the study. Left upper and lower canines were distalized using Poul Gjessing (PG) retractors, whereas right canines of the same patients were distalized using Hybrid retractors. Angular and linear measurements were performed on lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental models taken prior to and at the end of canine distalization. Paired Samples t-test, Repeated Measures of Analysis of Variance and Greenhouse-Geisser tests were used for statistical analysis. The mean rates of canine distalization in PG retractors were 1.03 and 0.88 mm/months and 1.13 and 0.93 mm/months for Hybrid retractors for upper and lower canines, respectively. No significant differences were detected in the rate of canine distalization, sagittal and vertical movement of canines, and first molars between retractors or arches. Despite the differences in reactivation and constancy of the forces between PG and Hybrid retractors, both revealed similar canine distalization, distal tipping, rotation, and anchorage loss of molars. As a clinical point of view, Hybrid retractors could provide more benefits due to fewer activation requirements.
authors: Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. belmaslan2003@yahoo.com
authors: B
authors: B
authors: Işik Aslan
authors: B
authors: B
authors: Baloştuncer
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Dinçer
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D003481:Cuspid / Q000002:abnormalities / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008311:Malocclusion, Angle Class I / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D011859:Radiography; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references: Eur J Orthod. 1994 Aug;16(4):317-23
references: 7957657
references: Eur J Orthod. 2004 Dec;26(6):585-9
references: 15650067
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Jan;117(1):98-105
references: 10629526
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Jul;100(1):66-71
references: 2069150
references: Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):505-13
references: 20457580
references: Am J Orthod. 1985 May;87(5):353-62
references: 3857860
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Aug;120(2):190-7
references: 11500662
references: Br J Orthod. 1982 Oct;9(4):194-202
references: 6958324
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 May;103(5):464-7
references: 8480716
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 May;115(5):498-507
references: 10229881
references: J Clin Orthod. 1994 Apr;28(4):222-42
references: 8613501
references: SADJ. 2007 Nov;62(10):446-7, 450
references: 18500106
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Feb;95(2):99-106
references: 2916474
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Mar;119(3):292-9
references: 11244423
references: Angle Orthod. 1966 Apr;36(2):99-120
references: 5218678
references: Am J Orthod. 1976 Jul;70(1):1-19
references: 1066042
references: J Orofac Orthop. 2002 Nov;63(6):472-82
references: 12444531
references: J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61(5):341-51
references: 11037686
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 May;91(5):375-84
references: 3472456
references: Am J Orthod. 1982 Nov;82(5):361-78
references: 6961808
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Jan;105(1):49-60
references: 8291493