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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: To compare the efficiency and effectiveness of Active laceback ligatures with that of Mulligan bypass arch for the amount of retraction, tipping and rotation. Materials and Methods: 20 patients were selected for the study who required upper 1 st premolar extraction for decrowding. All patients were treated with 3M Gemini - MBT 0.022” metal brackets. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 10 patientsin each group. Group 1 was treated with active laceback ligature and group 2 with Mulligan bypass arch. Changes were measured on the cast with a digital vernier caliper. Student ‘t’test was used to determine the mean differences between the two groups for the amount of retraction, tipping and rotation. Results: Significant distal movement of Canine occurred in both the groups. Movement of canine was more in group 2 but distal tipping of canine and distopalatal rotation of the molar was more in group 1. These differences were mainly attributed to the arch wire material and type of force. Conclusion: Mulligan bypass arch group provided a more controlled and faster tooth movement when compared to active laceback ligature.

Individual canine retraction: RCT comparing Mulligan bypasses arch and Active laceback ligatures