Tuesday, Sept 24 2024

PDF] A Comparison of Effect of Regular Laceback Technique and Its

By A Mystery Man Writer

The modified laceback technique creates a statistically significant decreased in the loss of posterior anchorage in MBT system during leveling and aligning phase compared with regular lace back technique. Objective: To compare the effect of laceback ligatures and its modification on anchorage loss in MBT system during leveling and aligning phase. Research methodology: Twenty adolescents patients, requiring extraction of upper first premolars, were randomly assigned to the study. Each patient was received two different laceback techniques on either right or left side in the upper arch by random selection. Regular laceback ligature wire size 0.010A was tied in a figure of 8 from upper second molar tube to canine bracket on one side. The opposite side, modified laceback ligature wire was tied from upper second molar to upper canine as well but with two twists, first, mesial to the second premolar and second, mesial to the canine bracket. All of teeth will be bracketed with MBT brackets. Each patient went through the same arch wire sequence of 0.016A HANT, 0.019Ax0.025A HANT and 0.019Ax0.025A SS. The arch wire was bended immediately behind the second molar tube. The lateral cephalogram and impression were taken immediately after appliances were fixed and after leveling and aligning phase. The amounts of the movement and the rotation of maxillary first molar and second premolar were determined form study model. The angulation of maxillary first molar, second premolar, canine and incisor were determined form cephalogram. Compared the changed of teeth movement, angulation and rotation between regular and modified laceback using pair t-test. Results: The maxillary first molar in regular laceback group were statistically significant moved mesially more than the movement in modified laceback group (0.69 ± 0.29 mm and 0.49 ± 0.23 mm respectively). The maxillary second premolar in regular laceback group were statistically significant moved mesially more than the movement in modified laceback group (1.04 ± 0.42 mm and 0.59 ± 0.25 mm respectively). In the modified laceback group, the difference between mesial movement of the second premolar and first molar was 0.1 ± 0.42 mm and in the regular laceback group was 0.35 ± 0.45 mm, there was statistically significant (p = 0.035). Conclusion: The modified laceback technique creates a statistically significant decreased in the loss of posterior anchorage compared with regular laceback technique.