Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of Canine Retraction Using Ceramic Bracket and Ceramic Bracket with Metal Slot with Conventional Preadjusted Edgewise Appliance Bracket Systems: A Clinical Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The introduction of ceramic brackets was a much-heralded development in the field of orthodontics. However, the increased frictional resistance with these brackets led to the development of ceramic brackets with metal slots, which claimed to combine the esthetics of ceramic brac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shaik, Junaid Ahmed, Guram, Guneet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30123760
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_301_17
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The introduction of ceramic brackets was a much-heralded development in the field of orthodontics. However, the increased frictional resistance with these brackets led to the development of ceramic brackets with metal slots, which claimed to combine the esthetics of ceramic brackets with the low frictional resistance of metal brackets. Hence, this study was undertaken to evaluate the rate of canine retraction and the amount of anchor loss while using ceramic brackets and ceramic brackets with metal slots and with conventional preadjusted edgewise appliance (PEA) metal brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient sample consists of 12 patients. Six patients received ceramic brackets on one canine and conventional PEA metal brackets on the opposite canine within the same arch. The other six patients received ceramic brackets with metal slot on one canine and conventional PEA metal brackets on the opposite canine within the same arch. Unpaired t-test was used to analyze the data using SPSS version 20 (3M Unitek, Bangalore, Karnataka, India). The rate of retraction was calculated for individual canine retraction after initial leveling and aligning. Anchor loss was also calculated using the pterygoid vertical to the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar on the lateral cephalograms. RESULTS: The result of this study showed that the difference in the rate of retraction between ceramic brackets with metal slot and conventional PEA metal brackets and ceramic bracket while clinically significant was not statistically significant. The difference in the amount of loss of anchorage of both the groups was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of the metal slot in ceramic brackets has reduced frictional resistance for more efficient and desired tooth movement. Ceramic brackets with metal slot generate lower frictional forces than ceramic brackets but higher than conventional PEA metal brackets.