scholarly journals The effectiveness of micro-osteoperforations during canine retraction: A three-dimensional randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
HouY Xia ◽  
Basema Alqadasi ◽  
Khalid Aldhorae ◽  
Esam Halboub ◽  
Nasrin Mahgoub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Canine Retraction

Efficacy of elastic memory chains versus nickel–titanium coil springs in canine retraction: A two-center split-mouth randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-574
Author(s):  
Mashallah Khanemasjedi ◽  
Mehrnaz Moradinejad ◽  
Pedram Javidi ◽  
Ozra Niknam ◽  
Nima Haghighat Jahromi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Canine Retraction

scholarly journals Efficacy of Er,Cr Laser incision Corticotomy in Rapid Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-449
Author(s):  
Majid Mahmoudzadeh ◽  
Banafshe Poormoradi ◽  
Sara Alijani ◽  
Maryam Farhadian ◽  
Azadeh Kazemisaleh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Maxillary Canine ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Laser Incision

scholarly journals Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre da C. Monini ◽  
Luiz G. Gandini ◽  
Alexandre P. Vianna ◽  
Renato P. Martins ◽  
Helder B. Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Movement Rate ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Lower Canine ◽  
Anchorage Loss ◽  
Tooth Movement Rate

ABSTRACT Objectives: To investigate the canine retraction rate and anchorage loss during canine retraction using self-ligating (SL) brackets and conventional (CV) brackets. Differences between maxillary and mandibular rates were computed. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five subjects requiring four first premolar extractions were enrolled in this split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Each patient had one upper canine and one lower canine bonded randomly with SL brackets and the other canines with CV brackets but never on the same side. NiTi retraction springs were used to retract canines (100 g force). Maxillary and mandibular superimpositions, using cephalometric 45° oblique radiographs at the beginning and at the end of canine retraction, were used to calculate the changes and rates during canine retraction. Paired t-tests were used to compare side and jaw effects. Results: The SL and CV brackets did not show differences related to monthly canine movement in the maxilla (0.71 mm and 0.72 mm, respectively) or in the mandible (0.54 mm and 0.60 mm, respectively). Rates of anchorage loss in the maxilla and in the mandible also did not show differences between the SL and CV brackets. Maxillary canines showed greater amount of tooth movement per month than mandibular canines (0.71 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively). Conclusions: SL brackets did not show faster canine retraction compared with CV brackets nor less anchorage loss. The maxillary canines showed a greater rate of tooth movement than the mandibular canines; however, no difference in anchorage loss between the maxillary and mandibular posterior segments during canine retraction was found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document