Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 52-57
Comparative evaluation of duration of extraction space closure and degree of root resorption with conventional and self-Ligation brackets


1 Dental Officer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Government Dental Center, Nagaland, India
2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Mansarovar Dental College, Bhopal, India
3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, ESIC Dental College and Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India
4 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Harsh Ashok Mishra
Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1127_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Determination of difference between conventional and passive self-ligating brackets (SLBs) in respect of extraction space closure, patient perception and root resorption. Material and Methods: Eighty patients were divided into four groups of 20 each with age-sex-matched control using a simple randomisation technique and allocation concealment with a closed opaque envelope method. Group 1 consisted of conventional brackets with Connecticut New Archwire (CNA) wire mushroom loop, group 2 consisted of conventional brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction, group 3 consisted of passive SLB with CNA archwires (Libral Traders, India) mushroom loop and group 4 consisted of passive SLB brackets with TAD (AbsoAnchor, Korea) supported retraction. The rate of retraction, root resorption and patient satisfaction were assessed. All conventional brackets (Orthox, USA) and passive SLBs (CaptainOrtho, India) had 0.018 Roth prescriptions with a slot size of 0.018 × 0.025. Results: Retraction was the fastest in group 2 with a mean of 1.266 ± 0.14 mm/4 week and a duration of 23.40 weeks. Similarly, group 4 showed the most sluggish movement with a mean of 1.182 ± 0.80 mm/4 weeks with a total duration of 25 weeks; howeverdifferencesce among groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.470). Conclusion: SLBs have advantage of better patient comfort, less pain and reduced chairside time. Though the present study found increased treatment duration with SLB along with friction mechanics, refuting the previous claims of reduced friction with SLBs, however, the difference was not statistically significant and results have to be extrapolated with caution and experience considering other advantages of SLBs.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 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 *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed892    
    Printed52    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal