Class II Malocclusion Clinical Trial
Official title:
Canine Retraction Using Power Arms and Temporary Anchorage Devices
Various malocclusions require the extraction of the first premolars and retraction of the canines with the need for maximum anchorage. If the canines are pulled into the extraction space using the molar teeth for support, unwanted tooth movement occurs. This study aims to evaluate the effect of temporary anchorage devices and power arms, which are auxiliary orthodontic appliances in reducing undesirable tooth movements.
In orthodontic patients who require overjet correction, increased facial convexity, or relief of severe crowding, dental extraction followed by canine retraction is indicated. In conventional orthodontic treatment, the molars are used for anchorage and reinforced with intra-oral or extra-oral appliances. Although effective, this produces unwanted side effects where the molars move mesially and rotate, taking up some of the extraction space. As the canines move into the extraction space they tip backward requiring further uprighting. Power arms are vertical metal extensions placed in the canine brackets. They direct the force to the center of resistance of the tooth to allow bodily movement and prevent canine tipping. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) are minimally invasive, small screws, inserted in the jaw bones to act as anchorage units instead of the molars. This study aims to evaluate the effect of the TADs and power arms on the efficiency of canine retraction including the rate of canine retraction and canine tipping as well as mesial molar drift and rotation. The null hypothesis is that the use of the power arm and the TADs have no effect on the canine retraction rate. This study is a single-arm, single-center study. Twenty quadrants in 10 adult patients will be selected from the Orthodontic Outpatient Clinic at the Future University in Egypt. Orthodontic records will be collected including study models, intra- and extra-oral photographs and cone beam computed tomograms. Molars will be banded and Roth 0.22" brackets will be bonded to the canine and second premolars. Power arms, 8mmin length, will be inserted in the vertical slots of the canine brackets. The dental arches will be leveled and aligned using consecutive archwires. TADs will be inserted between the second premolars and first molars. The first premolars will then be extracted and canines will be retracted within a week. Canines will be retracted along 0.016" X 0.22" stainless steel archwires using 150 g of force applied by an elastomeric chain. The elastic chain will be replaced every 4 weeks. After 6 months of canine retraction, the orthodontic records will be collected for comparison. ;
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT05440526 -
the Mini-plate Anchored Herbst Appliance Versus the Dentally Anchored Fixed Functional Appliance
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT06024382 -
The Effect of Low-level Laser Therapy on Functional Treatment of Skeletal Class II Patients
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05684510 -
Treatment of Mild Class II Malocclusion in Adult Patients With Clear Aligners Versus Fixed Multibracket Therapy
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05265416 -
Pain and Discomfort in Two Acceleration Methods of Canine Retraction
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT02000557 -
Photographic Analysis of Soft Tissue Facial Profile in Patients With Class II Malocclusion
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05592977 -
Effect of Bilateral Distalization of Upper First Molars in a Group of Patients After Extraction of Maxillary Second Molars
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05227859 -
Which is Better Piezosurgery or LLLT in Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05555719 -
Dentoskeletal Effects of Two Different Fixed Functional Appliances for Correction of Class II Malocclusion: A Comparative Clinical Study
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT06116500 -
Effectiveness of Modified Functional Appliance With Expander
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT06209086 -
Effects of Skeletal Anchored Versus Incisal Capped Twin Block Appliance in Class II Malocclusion
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05466344 -
the Condylar Response of Mini-plate Anchored Rigid Fixed Functional Appliance Versus Dentally Anchored Semi-rigid One
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT05166928 -
Effect of Upper Third Molar Extraction on Distalization Carriere Motion Appliance :A Prospective Clinical Study
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05652244 -
Evaluation of the Levels of Pain, Discomfort, and Functional Impairment With Two Techniques of Retraction
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT06308640 -
Evaluation of Maxillary Molar Distalization With Two Bone Supported Protocols Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05656898 -
Evaluation of the Levels of Pain and Discomfort and Periodontal Status Between Two Acceleration Methods of Upper Anterior Teeth Retraction
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05647720 -
Effect of Maxillary Third Molar Extraction vs. Non-extraction on Distalization of First Molars in a Group of Adolescent Patients
|
N/A | |
Not yet recruiting |
NCT03863275 -
Analysis of Muscle Activity With Myofunctional Devices, Using Surface Electromyography
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT06209125 -
Evaluation of Skeletal and Dental Effect of the New Hybrid Aesthetic Functional Appliance
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT05418413 -
The Use of an Esthetic Twin Block for Patients With Mandibular Retrusion
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT05597748 -
Modified Herbst Approach to Improve Chin Projection
|
N/A |