 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Canine Retraction: A Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing
Damon™
3 Self-Ligating with Conventional Ligating Brackets
(Penarikan Gigi Taring: Satu
Percubaan Klinikal Rawak untuk Membandingkan
Braket Swa-Ikatan Damon™ 3
dengan Braket Ikatan Konvensional)
Rohaya Megat Abdul
Wahab* & Hartini Idris
Orthodontic Department,
Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
50300 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Habibah Yacob
Muar Dental Clinic,
Poliklinik Bandar Maharani, Muar, Johor, Malaysia
Shahrul Hisham Zainal
Ariffin
School of Biosciences
and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology
Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor D.E. Malaysia
Diserahkan: 14 Disember
2011/Diterima: 11 Mei 2012
ABSTRACT
The clinical efficacy was
investigated between Damon™ 3 self-ligating (SLB)
and Mini Diamond conventional-ligating brackets (CLB)
of the straight-wire fixed orthodontic therapy on the tooth movement during
canine retraction stage. Twenty patients, age between 14 and 30 years old were
randomized into 2 groups: ten patients received Damon™ 3 SLB and another ten patients received Mini Diamond CLB.
A transpalatal arch soldered to both maxillary first molar bands was
constructed for each patient and cemented before the extraction of the
maxillary first premolars. The canine retraction was commenced on a 0.018”
stainless steel archwire by attaching a Nickel-Titanium close coil spring from
the canine bracket to the molar band for three consecutive visits of 4 weeks
interval (T0, T1,
T2 and T3).
Tooth movements were determined by subtracting the present measurement from the
previous ones using a digital caliper on a study model. Statistical analysis
showed that there was no difference (p>0.05) in canine retraction
between Damon™ 3 and Mini Diamond brackets. The Damon™ 3 and Mini Diamond
brackets have same efficacy in tooth movement.
Keywords: Canine retraction;
conventional ligating bracket; Damon 3 self-ligating bracket;
orthodontics
ABSTRAK
Keberkesanan
klinikal dikaji antara braket Swa-ikatan DamonTM 3 dan ikatan
konvensional Mini Diamond (CLB)
daripada terapi ortodontik menggunakan wayar lurus pada pergerakan gigi semasa
tahap penarikan gigi taring. Dua puluh pesakit, berumur antara
14 dan 30 tahun dirawak menjadi dua kumpulan, sepuluh pesakit menerima braket
Swa-ikatan Damon™ 3 dan sepuluh pesakit lainnya ikatan konvensional Mini Diamond
(CLB). Satu
lengkung transpalatal dipateri ke atas kedua-dua gegelang besi geraham pertama
maksilari, dibina untuk setiap pesakit dan disimen sebelum penarikan geraham
pertama maksilari. Penarikan gigi taring menggunakan wayar lengkung
keluli nirkarat 0.018” dengan melekatkan spring Nikel-Titanium pada gigi taring
ke gegelang besi geraham selama tiga temu janji berterusan dalam masa 4 minggu
(T0, T1,
T2 dan T3). Pergerakan gigi ditentukan dengan menghitung perbezaan dari
pembacaan jarak sekarang dengan sebelumnya menggunakan kaliper digital pada
model gigi. Analisis statistik menunjukkan bahawa
tidak ada perbezaan signifikan (p>0.05)
dalam penarikan gigi taring antara braket DamonTM 3 dan Mini Diamond. Braket Damon™ 3
and Mini Diamond mempunyai keberkesanan yang sama dalam pergerakan gigi.
Kata
kunci: Braket ikatan konvensional; braket Swa-ikatan Damon™ 3; ortodontik;
penarikan gigi taring
RUJUKAN
Hain, M.,
Dhopatkar, A. & Rock, P. 2006. A comparison of different
ligation methods on friction. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopaedics 130: 666-670.
Harradine,
N. & Birnie, D. 2006. Self-ligating Brackets: Theory and Practice.
Excellence in Orthodontics: pp 197-222. www.excellenceinorthodontics.com
Harradine,
N.W.T. 2003. Self-ligating brackets: Where are we now? Journal of
Orthodontics 30: 262-273.
Henao, S.P.
& Kusy, R.P. 2004. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional
and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental
typodonts. Angle Orthodontist 74: 202-211.
Huffman, J.D. & Way, D.C.
1983. A clinical evaluation of tooth movement along arch wires of two different
sizes. American Journal of Orthodontics 6: 453-459.
Ireland, A.J., Sherriff, M.
& McDonald, F. 1991. Effect of bracket and
wire composition on frictional forces. European Journal of
Orthodontics 13: 322-328.
Kanupriya Sethi,
Shashikala Kumari, V., Uma, H.L. & Akshat Mahajan. 2011. Comparison
of dynamic frictional resistance between self ligating bracket system and non
conventional ligature system- an in vitro study. Archives of Oral
Sciences & Research 1(3): 129-134.
Kapur,
R., Sinha, P.K. & Nanda, R.S. 1998. Frictional resistance of the damon sl bracket. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 32:
485-489.
Kojima, Y., Fukui, H.
& Miyajima, K. 2006. The effects of friction and flexural rigidity of the
archwire on canine movement in sliding mechanics: A numerical simulation with a
3-dimensional finite element method. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopaedics 130: 275.e271-210.
Lee, A-Y. & Kim,
Y.H. 2011. Comparison of movement of the upper dentition according to anchorage
method: Orthodontic mini-implant versus conventional anchorage reinforcement in
class I malocclusion. International Scholarly Research Network (ISRN
Dentistry) 321206.
Lotzof,
L.P., Fine, H.A. & Cisneros, G.J. 1996. Canine retraction: A
comparison of two preadjusted bracket systems. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics 110: 191-196.
Meling, T.R., Ødegaard,
J., Holthe, K. & Segner, D. 1997. The effect of friction on the bending
stiffness of orthodontic beams: A theoretical and in vitro study. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics 112: 41-49.
Mezomo, M., de Lima,
E.S., de Menezes, L.M., Weissheimer, A. & Allgayer, S. 2011. Maxillary
canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized
clinical trial. Angle Orthodontist 81(2): 292-297.
Miles, P.G. 2007. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space
closure with sliding mechanics. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics 132(2): 223-225.
Mohrbacher, H., Celis,
J-P. & Roos, J.R. 1995. Laboratory testing of
displacement and load induced freeting. Tribology International 28:
269-278.
Peterson,
L., Spencer, R. & Andreasen, G.F. 1982. A comparison of
friction resistance for nitinol and stainless steel wire in edgewise brackets. Quintessence
International 5: 563-571.
Pizzoni, L., Ravnholt,
G. & Melsen, B. 1998. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. European
Journal of Orthodontics 20: 283-291.
Proffit, W.R. 2000. Contemporary
Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby.
Ren, Y., Maltha, J.C.
& Kuijpers-Jagtman, A.M. 2003. Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic
tooth movement: A systematic literature review. Angle Orthodontist 73:
86-92.
Rinchuse, D.J. &
Miles, P.G. 2007. Self-ligating brackets: Present and future. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics 132(2): 216-222.
Rohaya, M.A.W., Hartini,
I., Habibah, Y. & Shahrul Hisham, Z.A. 2011. Comparison
of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. European
Journal of Orthodontics 34(2): 176-181.
Shivapuja, P.K. &
Berger, J. 1994. A comparative study of conventional ligation
and self-ligation bracket system. American Journal of Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopaedics 106: 472-480.
Sirinivas, S. 2003. Comparison
of Canine Retraction with Self-ligating and Conventional Ligated Brackets-A
Clinical Study. Chennai: Tamilnadu Medical University.
Stivaros,
N., Lowe, C., Dandy, N., Doherty, B. & Mandall, N.A. 2010. A
randomized clinical trial to compare the goshgarian and nance palatal arch. European Journal of Orthodontics 32: 171-176.
Storey,
E. & Smith, R. 1952. Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Australian
Dental Journal 56: 11-18.
Tidy, D.C. 1989. New wires for old. Dental Update 16: 137-145.
Voudouris, J.C. 1997.
Interactive edgewise mechanisms: Form and function comparison with conventional
edgewise appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopaedics 111: 119-140.
*Pengarang untuk surat-menyurat; email: shahroy7@gmail.com
|
|||
|
