Dataset Information

Type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy in adults: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: Objective:The objective of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare the type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy. Methods:Twenty-eight subjects were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to either the labial or lingual group. En masse anterior retraction was performed using labial biocreative therapy in group A and lingual biocreative therapy in group B. Cone beam computed tomography scans were taken before and after retraction and the primary outcome was the type of tooth movement during anterior retraction. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests for comparisons within each group and independent-sample t-test for comparison of the mean treatment changes between the two groups. Results:Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to the type of tooth movement (labiolingual inclination of the central incisor; mean difference, 5.85 ± 1.85°). The canine showed significant distal tipping in the lingual group (mean difference, 6.98 ± 1.25°). The canine was significantly more intruded in the lingual group (mean difference, 1.67 ± 0.49 mm). Good anchorage control and significant soft tissue changes occurred in both groups. No serious adverse effects were detected. Conclusions:With a 10-mm retraction hook, the labial biocreative technique with the reverse curve overlay provided anterior retraction with good torque control, while in the lingual group, anterior retraction occurred with controlled tipping movement with significant distal tipping and intrusion of the canine (trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03239275]).

SUBMITTER: Sadek MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6883212 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Type of tooth movement during <i>en masse</i> retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy in adults: A randomized clinical trial.

Sadek Mais M MM Sabet Noha E NE Hassan Islam T IT

Korean journal of orthodontics 20191126 6

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare the type of tooth movement during <i>en masse</i> retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy.<h4>Methods</h4>Twenty-eight subjects were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to either the labial or lingual group. <i>En masse</i> anterior retraction was performed using labial biocreative therapy in group A and lingual biocreative therapy in group B. Cone beam computed tomography sca ...[more]

PMID: 31815106

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the levels of pain, discomfort, and functional impairment associated with the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion patients using traditional corticotomy or flapless corticotomy. In addition, an assessment of patients' satisfaction with the selected surgical intervention was undertaken at one-month post-operatively.Materials and methodsThe study sample comprised 40 patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion, randomly assigned to either the traditional corticotomy group (n=20) or the flapless corticotomy group (n=20). Patients underwent extraction of the maxillary first premolars, and orthodontic mini-screws were placed between the maxillary second premolars and the first molars for skeletal anchorage. An en-masse retraction was accomplished in both groups. Patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire at 24 hours (T1), four days (T2), seven days (T3), 14 days (T4), and 28 days (T5) after the surgical intervention using standardized questionnaires. Most questions were answered on a visual analog scale where zero scores meant the absence of pain, discomfort, or functional impairment, and 100 scores meant the worst feelings of these traits.ResultsAll patients in both groups entered data analysis with no dropouts. All measured levels were significantly greater in the traditional corticotomy group during the first two weeks following the corticotomy intervention in terms of pain perception (P˂0.001), discomfort (P=0.004), and difficulty in chewing (P=0.015). Additionally, during the first week following corticotomy, levels of perception of discomfort (P˂0.001), difficulty in swallowing (P=0.001), and limitation of jaw movement (P˂0.001) were significantly greater in the traditional corticotomy group. Patient satisfaction, the recommendation to a friend, and acceptance of flapless corticotomy were significantly greater than traditional corticotomy (P=0.002, P=0.001, respectively). 78% of patients in the traditional corticotomy group considered it more discomfort than a tooth extraction, while 50% of patients in the flapless corticotomy group considered tooth extraction more discomfort, with a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.001).ConclusionsThe levels of negative patients' reported outcomes were significantly smaller with flapless corticotomy than with traditional corticotomy. Traditional corticotomy was associated with mild to moderate levels of pain, swallowing difficulty, moderate levels of discomfort, chewing difficulty, and jaw movement limitation after 24 hours of the surgical procedure. In contrast, flapless corticotomy was less problematic and associated with mild pain, swelling, chewing difficulty, jaw movement limitation, and swallowing difficulty at the same assessment time. Patient satisfaction, acceptance, and recommendation to a friend were greater for flapless corticotomy than traditional intervention.

Project description:Background/aimRetraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.Material and methodsAn electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.ResultsA total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments. WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to - 2.79 mm [- 3.56 to - 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and - 1.76 mm [- 2.56 to - 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).ConclusionWithin its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Project description:Background/objectiveTo reproduce the methods and results of the study by Alobeid et al. (2018) in which the efficacy of tooth alignment using conventional labial and lingual orthodontic bracket systems was assessed.Materials/methodsWe used the identical experimental protocol and tested (i) regular twin bracket (GAC-Twin [Dentsply]) and lingual twin bracket systems (Incognito [3M]), (ii) together with NiTi 0.014" wires (RMO), and (iii) a simulated malocclusion with a displaced maxillary central incisor in the x-axis (2 mm gingivally) and in the z-axis (2 mm labially).ResultsThe method described by Alobeid et al. (2018) is not reproducible, and cannot be used to assess the efficacy of tooth alignment in labial or lingual orthodontic treatment. Major flaws concern the anteroposterior return of the Thermaloy-NiTi wire ligated with stainless steel ligatures. The reproduced experimental setting showed that a deflected Thermaloy-NiTi wire DOES NOT move back at all to its initial stage (= 0 per cent correction) because of friction and binding (see supplemented video), neither with the tested labial nor with the lingual brackets. Furthermore, an overcorrection of up to 138 per cent, which the authors indicate for some labial bracket-wire combinations and which deserves the characterization "irreal", stresses the inappropriateness of the method of measurement.Further flaws include: a) incorrect interpretation of the measurement results, where a tooth tripping around (overcorrection) is interpreted as a better outcome than a perfect 100 per cent correction; b) using a statistical test in an inappropriate and misleading way; c) uncritical copying of text passages from older publications to describe the method, which do not correspond to this experimental protocol and lead to calculation errors; d) wrong citations; e)differences in table and bar graph values of the same variable; f) using a lingual mushroom shaped 0.013" Thermaloy-NiTi wire which does not exist; g) drawing uncritical conclusions of so called "clinical relevance" from a very limited in vitro testing.ConclusionsClinical recommendations based on in vitro measurements using the Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System (OMSS) should be read with caution.

Dataset Information

Type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy in adults: A randomized clinical trial.

Publications

Type of tooth movement during <i>en masse</i> retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy in adults: A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets