Moshe Davidovitch

Anchorage loss--a multifactorial response.

Anchorage loss (AL) is a potential side effect of orthodontic mechanotherapy. In the present study, it is defined as the amount of mesial movement of the upper first permanent molar during premolar extraction space closure. In addition, AL is described as a multifactorial response in relation to the extraction site, appliance type, age, crowding, and overjet. For this study, 87 university clinic and private practice subjects, who were defined as maximum anchorage cases and had undergone bilateral maxillary premolar extractions, were divided into four groups according to extraction site (first vs second premolars), mechanics (lingual vs labial edgewise appliances), and age (adolescents vs adults). Overjet and crowding were examined from the overall sample. Data were collected from serial lateral cephalograms and dental casts. The results showed that as the severity of dental crowding increased, AL significantly decreased (r = -0.66, P = .001). Labial edgewise appliances demonstrated a significantly greater AL than did lingual edgewise appliances (1.15 +/- 2.06 mm, P < .05). A greater, though not statistically significant, AL was found in adults than in adolescents (0.73 +/- 1.43 mm). There was a slight nonsignificant increase in AL between maxillary second compared with first premolar extractions (0.51 +/- 1.33 mm). Overjet was weakly correlated to AL. These results suggest that AL is a multifactorial response and that the five examined factors can be divided into primary (crowding, mechanics) and secondary factors (age, extraction site, overjet), in declining order of importance.

Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics.

OBJECTIVE To compare tipping mechanics (TM) and bodily mechanics (BM) with respect to duration, angulation, and anchorage loss during canine retraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS TM and BM brackets were bonded to the upper right and left canines, respectively, of 14 subjects requiring maxillary first premolar extractions. The upper canines were retracted with variable nickel titanium closed coil springs (F = 0.50 or 0.75 N) attached posteriorly to a Nance anchorage appliance through the first molars. Panoramic radiographs and dental casts were taken at five time points. Canine angulation was assessed with custom metallic jigs inserted into the vertical slots of the canine brackets prior to radiographic exposure. RESULTS The canine crown contacted the second premolar after 102.2 +/- 106 and 99.0 +/- 80.0 days, and achieved root uprighting in 72.0 +/- 31.3 and 37.2 +/- 42.7 additional days with the TM and BM groups, respectively. Only the uprighting stage differed significantly between the two mechanics (P < .05). During retraction, tooth angulation differed significantly (P < .001) between the TM (6 degrees ) and BM (-0.8 degrees ) groups. Anchorage loss, as assessed by mesial molar movement, was 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm and 1.4 +/- 0.5 mm for the TM and BM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Bodily canine retraction occurred faster (38 days) than tipping due to a shorter duration of root uprighting. Anchorage loss (17%-20%) was similar for both retraction methods, ie, maximum anchorage could not be provided by the Nance appliance. Both TM and BM brackets had inadequate rotational control of the retracted canine.

Bracket Placement in Lingual vs Labial Systems and Direct vs Indirect Bonding

OBJECTIVE To examine the ultimate accuracy of bracket placement in labial vs lingual systems and in direct vs indirect bonding techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty pretreatment dental casts of 20 subjects were selected. For each dental cast, four types of bracket placement were compared: labial direct (LbD), labial indirect (LbI), lingual direct (LgD), and lingual indirect (LgI). Direct bonding was performed with the casts held in a mannequin head. Labial brackets were oriented with a Boone gauge, and lingual brackets were oriented with the Lingual-Bracket-Jig System. Torque error (TqE) and rotation deviation (RotD) were measured with a torque geometric triangle and a toolmakers microscope, respectively. Both torque and rotational measurements were evaluated statistically as algebraic and absolute numeric values, using analysis of variance with repeated measures. RESULTS Absolute TqE and RotD were significantly (P < .001) higher in direct than in indirect bonding techniques higher in both the labial and lingual bracket systems by twofold and threefold, respectively (LbD = 7.26 degrees , 1.06 mm; vs LbI = 3.02 degrees , 0.75 mm; LgD = 8.42 degrees , 1.13 mm; vs LgI = 3.18 degrees , 0.55 mm). No statistically significant difference was found between labial and lingual systems for the same bonding technique. Maxillary incisors demonstrated the largest RotD angle (eg, right lateral: 12.04 degrees ). A distal off-center RotD was predominant in the mandibular dentition. CONCLUSIONS Labial and lingual systems have the same level of inaccuracy. For both systems, indirect bonding significantly reduces absolute TqE and RotD. The TqE found can cause transverse discrepancy (scissors or crossbite) combined with disclusion with antagonist teeth. The RotD found can result in irregular interproximal contact points.

Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket Cement Using a Bleaching Light for Curing

Aim: To investigate the bond strengths achieved by using a Bleaching Curing Light (BCL) to polymerize orthodontic bonding cement. Material and Methods: 160 anterior bovine teeth were used to form 20 average sized human dental arches, and distributed into 2 groups according to which light curing method used: Group 1: BCL for 40 seconds, or Group 2: LED for 10 seconds. After storage in a controlled environment, Shear Bond Strength (SBS) and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) were determined. Results: Group 1 showed significantly lower SBS in the most posterior (first molar) position of the dental arch, (Group 1: 0.7 ± 1.0 MPa, Group 2: 2.9 ± 1.7 MPa, p Conclusion: Simultaneous full-arch curing of orthodontic bracket cement using a BCL is clinically acceptable in all but the most posterior locations along the dental arch.