Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 434
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 9

Comparison of canine retraction by conventional and corticotomy-facilitated methods: A split mouth clinical study


1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Periodontics, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Monis Raza
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, I.T.S. Center for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad - 201 206, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jos.JOS_12_20

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this split-mouth single-centered, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the efficiency of corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics in rapid canine retraction. METHODS: The sample consisted of 10 patients (15–25 years old) requiring extraction of the maxillary first premolars with subsequent canine retraction. The patients' right sides were randomly assigned to either the corticotomy (experimental) or control groups. Corticotomy cuts and perforations were performed and canine retraction was initiated bilaterally with closed-coil nickel-titanium springs that applied 150 g of force. The following variables were examined till the end of canine retraction on both sides: Rate of canine retraction, canine root resorption, and patient perception of the procedure. The rate of canine retraction was assessed every month using study models while root resorption was evaluated using CBCT. Patient's perception was evaluated using a 100 mm VAS. RESULT: Mean time taken for full completion of canine retraction: 5.7 months (test) and 7.1 months (control). Mean root resorption: 0.53 ± 0.10 (control) and 0.24 mm ± 0.10 (test). Mean VAS scores: 16 ± 3.94 (24 hours) and 2 ± 2.58 (1 week) at control side and 46.50 ± 6.69 (24 hours) and 2 ± 2.58 (1 week) at test. CONCLUSION: There was an overall reduction in the time taken for canine retraction with corticotomy; however, an increase in the rate of canine retraction in the corticotomy-facilitated method was evident only for the first four months, compared to the conventional method. Less root resorption was observed in corticotomy-facilitated method than conventional method. Pain perception was more for corticotomy-facilitated method than conventional method at 24 hours, but similar after one week.


[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
    Viewed240    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal