The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, May-June 2013;14(3):00-00
ABSTRACT
Aim: Retraction of maxillary canines after first premolar
extractions is a very common orthodontic task in cases of
crowding or for the correction of large overjet. Many studies
have been done to increase the rate of retraction. The aim is to
compare the rate of canine retraction into recent extraction site
with and without circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy.
Materials and methods: The rate of movement of the canines
into the recent extraction site of the first premolar with or without
circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy was measured in 14
patients aged 13 to 22 years. The study was done on 9 maxillary
and 5 mandibular arches. The appliance used in the present
study was the preadjusted edgewise (0.022 inch Roth
prescription) and retraction performed by frictionless mechanics
using Composite T Loop. The distalization of canines was
measured at regular intervals (T1, T2, T3 and T4). Recordings
of the positions of the canines at the beginning and at different
intervals were made from dental casts.
Results: The mean difference between the two sides for the
total time span T1-T4, for maxillary arch was 0.36 mm and for
mandibular arch was 0.60 mm respectively.
Conclusion: There can be various factors that affect the rate
of tooth movement. Factors like bone density, bone metabolism,
and turnover in the periodontal ligament, amount of force applied
may be responsible for the variation.
Clinical significance: No clinically significant increased rate
of retraction of cuspids in the recent extraction site with
fiberotomy was found in comparison to the retraction in recent
extraction site without fiberotomy.
Keywords: Canine retraction, Fiberotomy, Circumferential
supracrestal fiberotomy, T loop, Rate of retraction.
How to cite this article: Kalra A, Jaggi N, Bansal M, Goel S,
Medsinge SV, Abraham R, Jasoria G. Comparison of Rate of
Canine Retraction into Recent Extraction Site with and without
Gingival Fiberotomy: A Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract
2013;14(2):00-00.