Sains Malaysiana 42(2)(2013): 251–255

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

Received: 14 December 2011/Accepted: 11 May 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

REFERENCES

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. 3^rd 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.

*Corresponding author; email: shahroy7@gmail.com