Title of the topic

Yüklə 31.63 Kb.
ölçüsü31.63 Kb.


Title of the topic:

Evaluation of maxillary canine retraction and rotation using self-ligating

(Damon 3) and conventional MBT pre-adjusted edge wise bracket systems –

A Comparative in vivo study.


Brief resume of intended work:

6.1 Need for the study

Self-ligating brackets introduced by Dr.Stolzenberg in 1935 are

ligature less bracket systems that have a mechanical device built into the

bracket to close off the edgewise slot. These are smoother for the patients

because of the absence of wire ligature , do not require as much chair time

and also have low friction between bracket and arch wire. This is a new type

of study where we want to compare retraction rate of the maxillary canine

using self-ligating Damon 3 brackets on one side of the arch and

conventional MBT preadjusted brackets on the another side , so that the

efficiency can be calculated at the end of the study in terms of canine

retraction and rotation.

6.2 Review of Literature

  1. Mauricio .M, Eduardo .S.l , Luciane de ., Andre.w, Susiane .A. Maxillary

canine retraction rate with self-ligating and Conventional brackets – A

Randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod, 2011: 81:292- 297.

  1. S. Jack burrow. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs

Conventional edgewise brackets. Angle orthod 2010;82 ;626 –


  1. Nikolas pandis, Peter G. Miles. Treatment efficiency with self-ligating

brackets: The clinical Evidence. Semin orthod 2010 : 16: 258-265.

  1. N.W.T.Harradine. Current products and practices : self-ligating

brackets -Where are we now. Journal of orthodontics vol 30, 2003:


  1. Lucca pizzoni, Gert ravnholt and Birte melsen. Frictional forces

related to self-ligating brackets. European Journal of orthodontics vol

20; 1998:283-291.

6.3 Objective of the study:

The objective of the study is to compare the

rates of retraction of maxillary canine teeth when bracketed with self-

ligating bracket on one side and a conventional bracket on the other side.


Materials and Methods:

7.1 Source of Data


  1. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop

  1. Angle Orthod

  1. European Journal of Orthodontics

  1. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics

  1. Seminars in Orthodontics

(Details attached)


  1. Machin D, Campbell M, Fayers P, Pinol A, 1997 ,Sample

Size tables for clinical studies, 2nd edition.

  1. Zar Jerrold M, 1984, Biostatical analysis, 2nd edition.

    1. Method of collection of Data

15 patients of mean age group 18-25 years who

required maxillary premolar extraction were selected. A self-ligating bracket

(Damon 3, American Orthodontics) was used on right or left maxillary canine

(selected by randomization) and a conventional bracket ( MBT series,

American Orthodontics) on the other. The teeth were retracted down a

0.0018 inch stainless steel arch wire (AO), using elastomeric chain (AO)

between canine and first molar. The measurements of canine retraction rate

(in mm) and rotation occurred (in degrees) are to be calculated on the study

Casts. The retraction rate is measured using digital caliper instrument from

the maxillary dental midline to the mesial side of the canine. The rotation is

represented by the angle formed between the median palatal suture and

the line passing through mesial and distal contact points of canines. Using a

Protractor, the angle formed is calculated in degrees.

Plan for data analysis

The measurements are taken every 28 days for 3

month’s i.e. initial value t0, t1 (4 weeks), t2 (8weeks), t3 (12weeks). The

amount of monthly movement is found by calculating the differences (t0-t1,

t1-t2 and t2-t3). The total amount of movement is considered to be the

difference of t0 -t3, and mean is obtained by dividing it by 3. From the above

values tables are prepared for both canine retraction and rotation. From

the tables Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) are calculated for both self-

ligating and conventional brackets. Finally the comparison between two

brackets are analyzed by “Paired t-test “or student t- test.

Inclusion criteria:

  1. Class II malocclusion with proclined maxillary anteriors or crowding.

  1. Class I malocclusion with proclined maxillary and mandibular anteriors.

  1. Bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars is indicated.

  1. 18 to 25 years of mean age.

Exclusion criteria:

When the periodontal health of the teeth is weak.


Does the study require any investigations or interventions to be conducted on patients or other humans or animals? If so, please describe briefly.

Yes, mine is an vivo study using 15 human samples in which investigations

such as orthopanthamograph (OPG) and lateral cephalograph are needed.


Has ethical clearance been obtained from your institution in case of 7.3?

Yes, ethical clearance has been taken.


List of References:

1. Houricio.M,Eduardo.S,Luciane.H,Andre.W,Suriane.A. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets – a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2011 ; 81 : 292 – 297.

2.C.L. Oliver,J.Daskalog’annakis,B.D.Tompsona. Arch wire is a significant parameter in frictional resistance of active and interactive , but not passive self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2011; 81;1036- 1044

3.L.M.Brauchli,Christiane.S,Andrea.W. Active and passive self-ligation- A Myth. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 312-318.

4.A.T.Dibiase,H.nasr,B.P.Scott & Martyn.T.C.Duration, Treatment and Outcome using Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139; 111e-114e.

5. Tsui-Hsien Haung, Hoi-Shing luk, Ying-Chi,Chia-Tze kao. An in vitro comparison of frictional forces between arch wires and self -ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 2011; July 2011 online.

6.Rohaya Hegat,Abdul wallaby,Hartin.I,Habibah yaccob .Comparison of self- ligating and conventional brackets in initial stage. Eur J orthod 2011; April 2011 online.

7 .Emily.o,H.Mc Callum, M.P.Griffin & Christopher. Efficiency of conventional vs. self- ligating brackets during initial alignment .Am J orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010 ;138 : 138e1-138e2.

8. S.Jack Burrow. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs. conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 2010; 82; 626 -633.

9. J.C.voudoun’s, C.Schismenos, K.Lackovic, M.Kuffinec. Self- ligating esthetic brackets with low frictional resistance .Angle Orthod 2010; 80:188-194.

10. Stephavie.S,Geoffrey.H,Tihyun-Elizabeth,Craig.L.S,G.J.Haung . Systemic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J orthod and Dentofacial orthop 2010; 137: 726e1-726e18.

11. Marshall.I, Gottsegen, New Orleans. Self -ligating brackets: looking back and going forward .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010: 138; 582.

12. Natalie reznikov, Gilad Har.z,Yossi.A&M.Redlich. Measurement of frictional forces between stainless steel wires and “reduced friction” self- ligating brackets Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010: 138; 330-8.

13. Nikolaos.P, A.Polychronopoulou &T.Eliades. Active or Passive self- ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparing efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 :12e1-12e6.

14. Firas Elayyan, Nick Silikas&David Boarnc. Mechanical properties of coated super elastic arch wires in conventional and self- ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop2010: 137 213-7.

15. Brezniak.N, Protter.n,Herman.A,Turgman.R,Zoizner.R. Biomechanics of self- ligating brackets. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010 137; 444.

16. Lorenzo, T.Baccetti, M.Camporesi, V.Giuntini. Forces released by non-conventional brackets or ligature less systems during alignment of buccally displaced teeth. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136; 316 e1-3.

17. P.Pellegrini, R.sauerwein, T.Finlayson, J.Mcleod. Plaque retention by self- ligating vs. elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 426 e1-e9.

18. M.Chung, R.Nikolia, Kiseom, Oonald.R.O. Third order torque and self- ligating orthodontic bracket- type effects on sliding friction .Angle Orthod 2009; 79 551-557.

19. Simona.T, Stefano, felice.F. Friction between arch wires of different sizes, cross sections and alloys and brackets ligated with low friction or conventional ligatures .Angle Orthod 2009; 79:111-116.

20. Sayeb.E, M.A.Mandich, T.H.Bialy, C.F.Mir. Frictional resistance between self- ligating brackets orthodontic and conventionally ligated brackets

Angle Orthod 2009; 79:592- 601.

21. S.Jack Burrow. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A Critical review. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:442-9.

22. David.L, Turpin. In vivo studies offer best method of self- ligation.

Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136:141-2.

23. Manu Krishnan, Sukamaran.K & K.M.Abraham. Comparative evaluation of frictional resistance in active and passive self -ligating brackets with various arch wires alloys .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 675-86.

24. C.A.Reichender, T.Gedrange, S.Berrich, P.Proff. Conventional ligated and self- ligating brackets – A comparative study .Eur J Orthod 2008; 654 – 660.

25. Nikolaos.P, Theodore.E, Samira.P, Christoph.B. Comparation of different ligation methods Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 138-9.

26. C.A.Reichender, T.Gedrange, S.Berrich. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self- ligating and conventional brackets

Angle Orthod 2008; vol 78, no6.

27. Hain M, Dhopatkar.A, Rock.P. Comparison of frictional forces during initial levelling stage in various combinations of self -ligating brackets and arch wires with a custom- designed typhodont system. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial orthop 2008; 133 : 187 e15- 187e27.

28.Tac-Kyung,Ki Dal&Seung-HakForces released during sliding mechanics with passive self- ligating brackets or nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:87-90.

29. Lorenzo.F, Tiziano.B, Mattco.C & Ersilia.B. Forces exerted by conventional and self- ligating brackets during simulated first and second order corrections .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133:738-42.

30. Nikolaos.P, Theodore, Samira, &Christoph.B. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding : A Prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:208-15.

Kataloq: cdc -> onlinecdc -> uploads
uploads -> Application for the approval of project proposal
uploads -> DR. vijaylaxmi. B. M post graduate student department of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
uploads -> Proforma for registration of subject for dissertation ms. Prema. B. M
uploads -> Bangalore, karnataka annexure II proforma for registration of subjects for dissertation
uploads -> Rajiv gandhi university of health sciences, bangalore proforma for registration of subjects for dissertation
uploads -> Name of the candidate and address permanent address
uploads -> Estimation of stature from measurements of hands and feet in tribal population
uploads -> Through proper channel
uploads -> Bangalore, karnataka proforma for registration of subject for dissertation
uploads -> Rajiv gandhi university of health sciences bangalore karnataka

Yüklə 31.63 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azrefs.org 2020
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə