Cover Image

Root Parallelism of Canine and Second Premolar in Preadjusted and Standard Edgewise Systems: A Comparative Study

Morteza Oshagh, Shahla Momeni Danaei, Ahmadreza Sardarian, Abbas Alipour, Mehdi Roeinpeykar, Yasamin Khaksar

Background and Aims: One of the main goals of standard orthodontic treatment is having the roots of teeth adjacent to extraction sites parallel to each other. The purpose of this study was to compare standard edgewise and preadjusted straight wire (MBT) methods in achieving this goal.

Materials and Methods: For comparing root parallelism, 228 maxillary quadrants and 225 mandibular quadrants of 127 patients in whom 1st premolar had been extracted during orthodontic treatment plan were evaluated. On pre and post-treatment panoramic views long axis of canines and 2nd premolars of each quadrant were traced and the angulations between them were measured to assess root parallelism. For comparing mean value of angulations measured in post-treatmentviews between MBT and SEW method, independent T-test and for comparing root parallelism of canines and 2nd premolars Chi-square test was used.

Results: Evaluating root movement and root parallelism of maxillary and mandibular canines and 2nd premolars did not show any statistically significant difference between treatment groups. (P> 0.05)

Conclusion: There is no difference between 2 methods of MBT and standard edgewise in achieving favorable root parallelism of teeth adjacent to extraction site. If each of these methods is used properly good root parallelism can be achieved in most of the cases.

standard edgewise; preadjusted straight wire; root parallelism; tooth extraction; orthodontic space closure

Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP. Introduction. In: Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP. Orthodontic treatment mechanics and the preadjusted appliance. London: Wolf Publishing; 1993; 9-11.

Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP, Trevisi HJ. Space closure and sliding mechanics. In: Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP, Trevisi HJ, editors. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Edinburg; 2001; 252.

Mavragani M, Vergari A, Selliseth NJ, Boe OE, Wish PJ. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with a standard edgewise and straight wire edgewise technique. Eur J orthod. 2000; 22 (6): 665-74.

Ravanmehr H, Abdolhosseini F. Upper Incisor Changes Due to Modifying the Point of Application of Forces during Space Closure in MBT Technique. Journal of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2004; 1(2): 11-16.

Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP, Trevisi HJ. A brief history and review of treatment mechanics. In: Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP, Trevisi HJ, editors. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Edinburg; 2001; 8-10.

Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop. 1998; 114 (5): 589-99.

Garcia-Figueroa MA, Raboud DW, Lam EW, Heo G, Major PW. Effect of buccolingual root angulation on the mesiodistal angulation shown on panoramic radiographs.Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop. 2008; 134 (1): 93-99.

Shroff B. Root correction during orthodontic therapy. SeminOrthod. 2001; 7 (1): 50-8.

Mayoral G. Treatment results with light wires studied by panoramic radiography. Am J Orthod. 1982; 81 (6): 489-97.

Graber TM. Postmortems in posttreatment adjustment.Am J Orthod. 1966; 52 (5): 331-52.

Edwards JG. The prevention of relapse in extraction eases. Am J Orthod. 1971; 60 (2): 128-41.

Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 2002 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 3.More breakdowns of selected variables. J Clin Orthod 2002; 36: 690-9.

Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St.Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsveir; 2007.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.