智能夹与传统托槽相比,犬齿内缩回率和支抗丢失率(一项体内研究)

S. Bhatia
{"title":"智能夹与传统托槽相比,犬齿内缩回率和支抗丢失率<e:1>(一项体内研究)","authors":"S. Bhatia","doi":"10.18311/JPFA/2021/27803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To analyse the rate of maxillary canine retraction and anchorage loss in Smart Clip Self Ligating (SCSL) and Conventional (CV) brackets. Materials and Methods: Forty four subjects were selected for the study requiring sectional maxillary canine retraction in first premolar extraction space during orthodontic treatment. The self ligating bracket (Smart Clip, 3M Unitek) on maxillary canine was compared to CV bracket (APC Victory series) on the contralateral side in a random split-mouth study design. Sectional canine retraction was done with a NiTi coil spring (150 gms force, 9 mm) on 0.016 × 0.022\" slot stainless steel wire. Results: The mean rate of distal movement of maxillary canine for the conventional (CV) bracket per 28 days was 1.048 mm and 1.027 mm for smart clip self ligating bracket (SCSL). Anchorage loss in molar was 0.586 mm and 0.652 mm for CV and SCSL bracket respectively. Conclusion: The rate of canine retraction for conventional bracket was faster than self ligating bracket, but not statistically significant (p>0.05). Comparatively, no major difference was found in terms of molar anchor loss between both bracket types. Therefore, this study indicates that conventional brackets are equally efficient as compared to self ligating brackets for segmental canine retraction mechanics.","PeriodicalId":77222,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Loss – In Smart Clip versus Conventional Brackets (An in-vivo study)\",\"authors\":\"S. Bhatia\",\"doi\":\"10.18311/JPFA/2021/27803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: To analyse the rate of maxillary canine retraction and anchorage loss in Smart Clip Self Ligating (SCSL) and Conventional (CV) brackets. Materials and Methods: Forty four subjects were selected for the study requiring sectional maxillary canine retraction in first premolar extraction space during orthodontic treatment. The self ligating bracket (Smart Clip, 3M Unitek) on maxillary canine was compared to CV bracket (APC Victory series) on the contralateral side in a random split-mouth study design. Sectional canine retraction was done with a NiTi coil spring (150 gms force, 9 mm) on 0.016 × 0.022\\\" slot stainless steel wire. Results: The mean rate of distal movement of maxillary canine for the conventional (CV) bracket per 28 days was 1.048 mm and 1.027 mm for smart clip self ligating bracket (SCSL). Anchorage loss in molar was 0.586 mm and 0.652 mm for CV and SCSL bracket respectively. Conclusion: The rate of canine retraction for conventional bracket was faster than self ligating bracket, but not statistically significant (p>0.05). Comparatively, no major difference was found in terms of molar anchor loss between both bracket types. Therefore, this study indicates that conventional brackets are equally efficient as compared to self ligating brackets for segmental canine retraction mechanics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":77222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18311/JPFA/2021/27803\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pierre Fauchard Academy (Pierre Fauchard Academy. India Section)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18311/JPFA/2021/27803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:分析智能夹自结扎(SCSL)和常规托槽(CV)的上颌尖牙后缩率和支抗丢失率。材料与方法:选择44名受试者,在正畸治疗中需要在第一前磨牙拔牙间隙进行上颌犬段内收。在随机裂口研究设计中,将上颌犬齿的自结扎托架(Smart Clip, 3M Unitek)与对侧的CV托架(APC Victory系列)进行比较。在0.016 Ã - 0.022”槽口不锈钢线上使用NiTi线圈弹簧(150克力,9毫米)进行分段犬形收放。结果:常规托槽(CV)和智能夹自结扎托槽(SCSL)平均28d上颌尖牙远端移动速率分别为1.048 mm和1.027 mm。CV和SCSL托槽磨牙支抗损失分别为0.586 mm和0.652 mm。结论:常规托槽的犬齿回缩率明显高于自结扎托槽,但差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。相比之下,两种类型的托槽在磨牙锚固损失方面没有明显差异。因此,本研究表明,与自结扎式托槽相比,传统托槽在节段性犬科收缩力学方面同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Loss – In Smart Clip versus Conventional Brackets (An in-vivo study)
Background: To analyse the rate of maxillary canine retraction and anchorage loss in Smart Clip Self Ligating (SCSL) and Conventional (CV) brackets. Materials and Methods: Forty four subjects were selected for the study requiring sectional maxillary canine retraction in first premolar extraction space during orthodontic treatment. The self ligating bracket (Smart Clip, 3M Unitek) on maxillary canine was compared to CV bracket (APC Victory series) on the contralateral side in a random split-mouth study design. Sectional canine retraction was done with a NiTi coil spring (150 gms force, 9 mm) on 0.016 × 0.022" slot stainless steel wire. Results: The mean rate of distal movement of maxillary canine for the conventional (CV) bracket per 28 days was 1.048 mm and 1.027 mm for smart clip self ligating bracket (SCSL). Anchorage loss in molar was 0.586 mm and 0.652 mm for CV and SCSL bracket respectively. Conclusion: The rate of canine retraction for conventional bracket was faster than self ligating bracket, but not statistically significant (p>0.05). Comparatively, no major difference was found in terms of molar anchor loss between both bracket types. Therefore, this study indicates that conventional brackets are equally efficient as compared to self ligating brackets for segmental canine retraction mechanics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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