Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment:study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338

Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation – testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making *

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73116/1/j.1365-2842.2007.01812.x.pd

Finite element analysis of rapid canine retraction through reducing resistance and distraction

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to compare different surgical approaches to rapid canine retraction by designing and selecting the most effective method of reducing resistance by a three-dimensional finite element analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three-dimensional finite element models of different approaches to rapid canine retraction by reducing resistance and distraction were established, including maxillary teeth, periodontal ligament, and alveolar. The models were designed to dissect the periodontal ligament, root, and alveolar separately. A 1.5 N force vector was loaded bilaterally to the center of the crown between first molar and canine, to retract the canine distally. The value of total deformation was used to assess the initial displacement of the canine and molar at the beginning of force loading. Stress intensity and force distribution were analyzed and evaluated by Ansys 13.0 through comparison of equivalent (von Mises) stress and maximum shear stress. RESULTS: The maximum value of total deformation with the three kinds of models occurred in the distal part of the canine crown and gradually reduced from the crown to the apex of the canine; compared with the canines in model 3 and model 1, the canine in model 2 had the maximum value of displacement, up to 1.9812 mm. The lowest equivalent (von Mises) stress and the lowest maximum shear stress were concentrated mainly on the distal side of the canine root in model 2. The distribution of equivalent (von Mises) stress and maximum shear stress on the PDL of the canine in the three models was highly concentrated on the distal edge of the canine cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of the bone in the pathway of canine retraction results in low stress intensity for canine movement. Periodontal distraction aided by surgical undermining of the interseptal bone would reduce resistance and effectively accelerate the speed of canine retraction