الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 144 |  |  |
| | | from | 144 | | |
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of periodontal ligament distraction using a modified surgical technique for retraction of maxillary canines in adult patients This study evaluated the buccal approach of the horizontal cut instead of the blind socket approach of the oblique cut in the original technique by Liou and Huang4
Materials & Methods: Ten orthodontic female patients, age range (18-25 years old), who required first premolar extractions were selected and 20 canines were distracted into the extraction space, using a distraction screw in a split-mouth - randomized controlled trial to evaluate the modified periodontal ligament distraction and conventional periodontal ligament distraction.
Results: No significant differences in the various parameters were found between the modified periodontal ligament distraction (PLD) and conventional periodontal ligament distraction (PLD); the mean rate of canine retraction in the conventional PLD side was (2.02mm/week), in the modified PLD side was (1.94mm/week). The distal canine tipping; measurements in the conventional PLD side (mean=16.95±5.85º), and also in the modified PLD side (mean=19.13±8.18º). Disto-palatal canine rotation; measurements in the conventional PLD side (mean=25.86±13.75º), and also in the modified PLD side (mean=18.13±7.29º). Molar anchorage loss: in the conventional PLD side, the range was 0.92±0.64mm and in the modified PLD side, the range was 0.9±0.45mm in the three weeks. Apical root resorption of canine; for the conventional PLD sides, there were apical irregularity (Score 1) in 33.3% of the cases and root resorption less than 2mm (score 2) in 22.2% of the cases. For the modified PLD sides, there were apical irregularity (Score 1) in 44.4%. Pulp vitality of the canine; 100% of the teeth had normal response pre and post periodontal ligament distraction in both sides. The Gingival Index score was in the range 0.1-1 of mild gingivitis in both sides. The periodontal index was between score 0, no signs of any gingival inflammation and score 1, Mild gingivitis in both sides and there was no case above score 1. The pain score in the conventional PLD sides was score 1 to 3. While it was score 1 to 4 in the modified PDL sides.
Conclusions: from the results of the present study the following conclusions could be drawn:
1- The surgical modified periodontal ligament distraction has no benefit over conventional periodontal ligament regarding the rate of canine retraction, distal canine tipping, pulp vitality of canine and pain perception. On the other hand, the surgical modified periodontal ligament distraction sides manifested less canine distopalatal rotation, anchorage loss, apical root resorption and gingival and periodontal indices than conventional periodontal ligament distraction sides.
2 - The surgical pin used in the recent study has an accurate estimation of the socket deepening, localization of the drill point and mesiodistal extension of the horizontal cut in the surgical modified periodontal ligament sides.
3- In both groups, the distracted maxillary canines showed significant distal tipping and distopalatal rotation.
4 - Dental distraction technique is considered a clinically efficient method for rapid canine retraction with a minimal amount of posterior anchorage loss.