Year : 2019

Volume : Volume 10

Issue : Issue 2

Address for correspondence :
Dr. Naresh Vattikunta.
NareshVattikunta@gmail.com

Abstract

Background:  Canine retraction is a very important step in treatment of patients with crowding, or first premolar extraction cases. Correct positioning of the canines after retraction is of great importance for the function, stability, and esthetics. The aim of the present study was conducted to compare the rate of canine retraction between T-loop and PG spring in orthodontic treatment. Material and methods: This were a single-center, split-mouth, simple randomized trial. In the present study total participants selected for the study were 40 patients divided into two groups. Group A was T-loop spring (right side of the upper arch) and Group B was PG spring (left side of the upper arch). Following extraction of first premolars, initial leveling was performed with the preadjusted edgewise appliance. After leveling and alignment, retraction of canine using either TL or PG spring was done. Outcomes were evaluated cephalometrically and using model analysis. The subjective assessment of pain and discomfort for both T-loop and PG spring was done using visual analog scale (VAS). All the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical package (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). P < 0.05 was considered as the level of significance. Results: In the present study total participants selected for the study were 40 patients divided into two groups. Group A was T-loop spring (right side of the upper arch) and Group B was PG spring (left side of the upper arch). The mean amount and rate of retraction of the canine were found to be higher for the PG spring when compared with T-Loop spring. Anchorage loss was also found to be significantly higher for PG spring when compared with T-Loop Spring. The amount of canine tipping for PG Spring was 6.567° ±2.543°, while that for T-Loop Spring was 1.324° ± 4.535°. Distopalatal rotation of the canine tooth was significantly higher for T-Loop Spring when compared with PG-spring. The VAS scores were 29.64 for PG spring and 48.76 for T-loop. P value found to be statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study concluded that PG spring shows increased rate of retraction and rotation control when compared with T-Loop Spring. The amount of tipping and anchorage loss obtained with PG spring were significantly higher than T-Loop spring. Patient comfort was better for PG spring.

Keywords: T-loop, PG spring, canine retraction.