English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Although much research has been undertaken on the rate of tooth movement, with different hypotheses having been put forward, the concepts of the threshold, light, heavy and optimal forces are not still clear. It has been stressed that an ideal orthodontic spring should have the ability to release a constant force throughout the entire range of its activation, but using traditional techniques applied initial force will decrease, depending on its deactivation due to the tooth movement and the physical properties of the force delivery system. The purpose of this study was to test the clinical use of a new and original spring, the drum spring (DS) retractor (developed in 1992), which applies a constant and continuous force without the need for reactivation, and to compare the effect of a constant and continuous force versus a continuous but diminishing force produced by a traditional pull coil (PC) retractor system on the rate of upper canine retraction. The clinical sample consisted of 15 patients with upper first premolar extractions. For each patient, the upper right canine was retracted by using a DS retractor applying a constant and continuous force of 50 g; the upper left canine was fitted with a conventional PC applying an initial force of 50 g, diminishing proportionally with the distal movement of the canine. In addition, each group was divided according to the age of each patient: eight patients (three males, five females) between 11.8 and 14.4 years of age (mean 13 +/- 1.2 years) represented the adolescent group, and seven patients (three males, four females) between 18.8 and 21.6 years of age (mean 18.2 +/- 1.9 years) representing the adult group. The experimental period started 1 week after the extraction of the first premolars. During this period no archwire was used, to avoid friction and force level changes, and the both springs were attached to a 6 mm hook fixed on the canine bracket to reduce tipping. The PC retractor was reactivated every 3 weeks whereas the DS retractor was left untouched over the entire experimental period. The study was continued until one of the two canines was completely retracted. The DS retractor was successful for space closure without any reactivation, and the continuous and constant force provided a more rapid canine movement than the continuous but diminishing force. Canine retraction occurred faster in adolescents than in adults. An entire field of clinical and research applications may be influenced by this new type of spring.

The drum spring (DS) retractor: a constant and continuous force for canine retraction