Clinical evaluation of a low-friction attachment device during canine retraction

Toru Deguchi, Mikako Imai, Yasuyo Sugawara, Ryoko Ando, Kazuhiko Kushima, Teruko Takano-Yamamoto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The present study used a split-mouth design to compare the amount of canine movement and the retraction time between brackets with Clear Snap and brackets with stainless steel ligature wires for three different levels of retraction force. Materials and Methods: A sample of 30 patients was used. After initial leveling, the canine was retracted using a 50-g (n = 10), 100-g (n = 10), or 150-g (n = 10) closed-coil spring. The canine on one side was chosen at random, and Clear Snap was attached to the bracket during the retraction period. The other side was used as a control. The amount of canine retraction was measured with a digital vernier caliper. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance. Results: The average canine retraction time was approximately 2 to 3 months less in all experimental groups (50, 100, and 150 g) compared to the control group. In the control group, 150 g resulted in a shorter duration of canine retraction compared to 50 g. There was no significant difference in the duration of canine retraction among the experimental groups. A greater amount of mean total canine movement was observed in all experimental groups compared to the control groups. Conclusion: A shorter duration of canine retraction time was observed with Clear Snap attached when compared with the control. The authors suggest that with the use of Clear Snap, less than 50 g of force may effectively retract a canine.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)968-972
Number of pages5
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume77
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 Nov

Keywords

  • Canine retraction
  • Clear Snap
  • Orthodontic treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical evaluation of a low-friction attachment device during canine retraction'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this