Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 538    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 296-303

A comparative evaluation of canine retraction using ceramic bracket and ceramic bracket with metal slot with conventional preadjusted edgewise appliance bracket systems: Aclinical study


Department of Orthodontics, Adesh Institute of Dental Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Junaid Ahmed Shaik
Department of Orthodontics, Adesh Institute of Dental Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_301_17

Rights and Permissions

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 12patients. 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 usingSPSS version20 (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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed75    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal