A comparison of force decay: elastic chain or tie-back method?

World journal of orthodontics Pub Date : 2010-01-01
Morteza Oshagh, Shabnam Ajami
{"title":"A comparison of force decay: elastic chain or tie-back method?","authors":"Morteza Oshagh,&nbsp;Shabnam Ajami","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the amount of initial force and to compare the amount of force decay between the elastomeric chain and tie-back method over a period of time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty five-unit elastomeric chains (15 mm) stretched 100%, and twenty elastic modules in tie-back method stretched twice their original diameter were held in place by a series of pins 30-mm apart in acrylic blocks. The blocks were stored in 37 °C distilled water. The force of all samples was measured at baseline, 24 and 48 hours, and once a week thereafter for 4 weeks with a force gauge. The groups were tested with a multivariate analysis of repeated measurement at the 95% confidence level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The tie-back method with mean force of 577.50 grams (standard deviation [SD] 28.63) had a lower initial force than the elastomeric chain with mean force of 650.00 grams (SD 34.47). The elastomeric chain showed a substantial force decay of 355.50 grams (SD 53.2) at 24 hours, but the force decay in the tie-back method was less (mean 154 grams, SD 56.50). The force decay of the elastomeric chain and tie-back at 48 hours were 446.50 grams (SD 35.4) and 209 grams (SD 57.1), respectively. The difference between the force decay of the two groups at both 24 and 48 hours was statistically significant (P<.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using the tie-back method of space closure, which has more appropriate initial force and slower force decay, may have a clinical value, approaching a more light and continued force. However, more studies are required to test these findings in vivo.</p>","PeriodicalId":87213,"journal":{"name":"World journal of orthodontics","volume":"11 4","pages":"e45-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the amount of initial force and to compare the amount of force decay between the elastomeric chain and tie-back method over a period of time.

Methods: Twenty five-unit elastomeric chains (15 mm) stretched 100%, and twenty elastic modules in tie-back method stretched twice their original diameter were held in place by a series of pins 30-mm apart in acrylic blocks. The blocks were stored in 37 °C distilled water. The force of all samples was measured at baseline, 24 and 48 hours, and once a week thereafter for 4 weeks with a force gauge. The groups were tested with a multivariate analysis of repeated measurement at the 95% confidence level.

Results: The tie-back method with mean force of 577.50 grams (standard deviation [SD] 28.63) had a lower initial force than the elastomeric chain with mean force of 650.00 grams (SD 34.47). The elastomeric chain showed a substantial force decay of 355.50 grams (SD 53.2) at 24 hours, but the force decay in the tie-back method was less (mean 154 grams, SD 56.50). The force decay of the elastomeric chain and tie-back at 48 hours were 446.50 grams (SD 35.4) and 209 grams (SD 57.1), respectively. The difference between the force decay of the two groups at both 24 and 48 hours was statistically significant (P<.05).

Conclusion: Using the tie-back method of space closure, which has more appropriate initial force and slower force decay, may have a clinical value, approaching a more light and continued force. However, more studies are required to test these findings in vivo.

力衰减的比较:弹性链法还是回扎法?
目的:评估弹性体链和回扎法在一段时间内的初始力和力衰减量。方法:25个弹性单元(15mm)拉伸100%,20个回扎法弹性模块拉伸2倍于原直径,用一系列间隔30mm的钉固定在丙烯酸块上。切片保存在37°C蒸馏水中。在基线、24小时和48小时测量所有样本的力,此后每周用力计测量一次,持续4周。在95%的置信水平上,对各组进行重复测量的多变量分析。结果:回扎法的初始力平均为577.50 g(标准差[SD] 28.63),低于弹性链的初始力平均为650.00 g (SD 34.47)。弹性链在24小时的力衰减量为355.50 g (SD 53.2),而回接法的力衰减量较小(平均为154 g, SD 56.50)。弹性链和回接体在48h时的力衰减分别为446.50 g (SD 35.4)和209 g (SD 57.1)。两组在24小时和48小时的力衰减差异有统计学意义(p)结论:采用回扎法闭合间隙,初始力更合适,力衰减更慢,接近更轻且持续的力,可能具有临床价值。然而,需要更多的研究来在体内验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信