Cargando…

Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nandan, Hemwati, Kumar, Ch. Sudheer, Jha, Pragjyoti
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10037229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36968913
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35288
_version_ 1784911830692397056
author Nandan, Hemwati
Kumar, Ch. Sudheer
Jha, Pragjyoti
author_facet Nandan, Hemwati
Kumar, Ch. Sudheer
Jha, Pragjyoti
author_sort Nandan, Hemwati
collection PubMed
description Introduction This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant moment-to-force ratio whereas dual force cuspid retractor uses power arms on buccal as well as palatal aspects for canine retraction. Bodily tooth movement can be achieved by both methods, but in this study, our main focus was to reduce the canine retraction timing with better three-dimensional control. Method This split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 20 cuspids of ten patients (five male and five female). Where one side of the arch was selected for T-loop and the other side for dual force cuspid retractor, randomly. Inclusion criteria for this study were; no congenitally missing teeth (excluding third molar), class I or class II molar relationship, no previous history of orthodontic treatment, good oral periodontal status, patients in whom extraction of maxillary first premolar during treatment was indicated. Both groups were compared for the duration of canine retraction, anchorage loss; tipping, and rotation of cuspid and molar, individually, after retraction. Result The result of this study showed that the duration of canine retraction was significantly less in group one, i.e., dual force cuspid retractor 73.8 ± 12.38 days, than in group two, i.e., T-loop 109.4 ± 16.71 days. The anchorage loss in group one was 0.60 ± 0.61 mm and that in group two was 2.40 ± 0.87 mm. Also, the amount of tipping and rotation of the cuspid and molar individually was significantly lesser in group one than in group two. Conclusion In this study, the dual force cuspid retractor shortens the duration of canine retraction with better three-dimensional control and better anchorage preservation when compared to T-loop.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10037229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100372292023-03-25 Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial Nandan, Hemwati Kumar, Ch. Sudheer Jha, Pragjyoti Cureus Other Introduction This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant moment-to-force ratio whereas dual force cuspid retractor uses power arms on buccal as well as palatal aspects for canine retraction. Bodily tooth movement can be achieved by both methods, but in this study, our main focus was to reduce the canine retraction timing with better three-dimensional control. Method This split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 20 cuspids of ten patients (five male and five female). Where one side of the arch was selected for T-loop and the other side for dual force cuspid retractor, randomly. Inclusion criteria for this study were; no congenitally missing teeth (excluding third molar), class I or class II molar relationship, no previous history of orthodontic treatment, good oral periodontal status, patients in whom extraction of maxillary first premolar during treatment was indicated. Both groups were compared for the duration of canine retraction, anchorage loss; tipping, and rotation of cuspid and molar, individually, after retraction. Result The result of this study showed that the duration of canine retraction was significantly less in group one, i.e., dual force cuspid retractor 73.8 ± 12.38 days, than in group two, i.e., T-loop 109.4 ± 16.71 days. The anchorage loss in group one was 0.60 ± 0.61 mm and that in group two was 2.40 ± 0.87 mm. Also, the amount of tipping and rotation of the cuspid and molar individually was significantly lesser in group one than in group two. Conclusion In this study, the dual force cuspid retractor shortens the duration of canine retraction with better three-dimensional control and better anchorage preservation when compared to T-loop. Cureus 2023-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10037229/ /pubmed/36968913 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35288 Text en Copyright © 2023, Nandan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Other
Nandan, Hemwati
Kumar, Ch. Sudheer
Jha, Pragjyoti
Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort comparison of maxillary canine retraction using split-mouth design with dual force cuspid retractor and t-loop segmental arch: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10037229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36968913
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35288
work_keys_str_mv AT nandanhemwati comparisonofmaxillarycanineretractionusingsplitmouthdesignwithdualforcecuspidretractorandtloopsegmentalarchasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kumarchsudheer comparisonofmaxillarycanineretractionusingsplitmouthdesignwithdualforcecuspidretractorandtloopsegmentalarchasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT jhapragjyoti comparisonofmaxillarycanineretractionusingsplitmouthdesignwithdualforcecuspidretractorandtloopsegmentalarchasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial