Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
Comparison between corticision versus corticotomy assisted canine retraction :
الناشر
Shaimaa Abdeltawab Abdelqader ,
المؤلف
Shaimaa Abdeltawab Abdelqader
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / Shaimaa Abdeltawab Abdelqader
مشرف / Ehab Soliman Elkattan
مشرف / Eman Mohie Eldein Elsayed
مناقش / b Soliman Elkattan
تاريخ النشر
2019
عدد الصفحات
201 P. :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
ماجستير
التخصص
Dentistry (miscellaneous)
تاريخ الإجازة
7/11/2019
مكان الإجازة
جامعة القاهرة - الفم والأسنان - Orthodontics
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 232

from 232

Abstract

The current study was a split-mouth Randomized Controlled Trial that was performed to compare three dimensionally the difference between corticotomy and corticision on the rate of tooth movement in a canine retraction model. Sample size calculation was carried out and resulted in enrolment of 10 female patients requiring bilateral upper first premolars extraction and canine retraction with maximum anchorage. The sample was recruited from the outpatient clinic of the Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. After placement of the fixed orthodontic appliance, leveling and alignment proceeded till 0.017” {u00D7} 0.025” NiTi upper arch wire. Skeletal anchorage was then prepared using TADs inserted bilaterally between the upper 1st molar and 2nd premolar. Then an alginate impression was made to construct model (T0), and the patient was referred for pre-intervention CBCT imaging. The randomly allocated 1st premolar was then extracted and corticotomy procedure was carried out. Two weeks later, the contra-lateral upper first premolar was extracted, and the corticision procedure was performed. Bilateral canine retraction was then commenced after each procedure, using NiTi closing coil springs delivering 150 gms of force. Incremental rate of canine retraction was assessed through alginate impressions that were made every two weeks, poured into stone models and scanned to obtain sequential digital models (T0-T5). Post-intervention CBCT was made at the end of the follow-up period. CBCT images were used to evaluate the total distance traveled by the maxillary canine, 1st molar anchorage loss, tipping, torque and rotation of upper canine and 1st molar and finally canine root resorption. Pain was evaluated using verbal rating scale. Statistical analysis was performed on the collected data and results were withdrawn