Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 21
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3

Comparative evaluation of the maxillary canine retraction rate and anchorage loss between two types of self-ligating brackets using sliding mechanics

1 Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Boys, Cairo, Al-Azhar University, Egypt
2 Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ahmed Alassiry
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jos.JOS_73_18

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the maxillary canine retraction rate and anchorage loss with active and passive self-ligating brackets (SLBs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 10 patients whose age ranged from 14–20 years. The patients had minimal to no crowding with a dental protrusion of maxillary incisor that required the extraction of maxillary first premolars and retraction of canines. The maxillary canines had to be in a good alignment and level before treatment to ensure that canine retraction had started from the same point bilaterally. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) had been taken for each patient's maxilla before treatment initiation and after complete canine retraction. Using nickel titanium, close-coil spring canine retraction on both sides and the rate of canine movement was measured. RESULTS: The patients were checked every 2 weeks to measure the retraction rate and ensure that a constant force (150 g) was being delivered to both canines. The pre- and post-canine retractions CBCT were superimposed to evaluate the pattern and rate of canine movement and anchorage loss. The result of this study showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The type of SLB, either active or passive, does not affect the rate or type of canine movement during its retraction in the orthodontic extraction cases, and the anchorage loss of the upper molars was nearly the same in both type.

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
    PDF Downloaded420    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal