ORTODONTİK TEDAVİ SONRASI FARKLI HAREKETLİ RETANSİYON APAREYLERİNİN MOBİLİTE ÜZERİNE ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Year 2021, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 175 - 181, 15.04.2021

Nur Balcı Hilal Uslu Toygar Beyza Kırçelli

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.902213

Abstract

Giriş: Ortodontik tedavideki diş hareketleri esnasında gerek periodontal ligamentte (PDL) gerekse PDL’ye komşu kemik duvarında önemli fizyolojik değişiklikler meydana gelmektedir. Diş mobilitesi hem ortodontik tedavi boyunca hem de retansiyon döneminde periodonsiyumun biyomekanik özelliklerinin ve periodontal desteğin mevcudiyetinin değerlendirilmesinde önemli bir gösterge olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortodontik retansiyon amacı ile kullanılan Hawley ve Essix apareylerinin mobilite üzerine etkisini zamana bağlı karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemek ve bu apareylerin klinik yararlanımlarını değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza sabit ortodontik tedavi sonrası retansiyon döneminde Hawley apareyi kullanan 29 ve Essix apareyi kullanan 16 olmak üzere toplam 45 (35 kadın,10 erkek) katılımcı dahil edilmiştir. Diş mobilite ölçümleri braketler söküldükten hemen sonra (ilk ölçüm) ve sonrasında 1.hafta,1.,2.,3,6.,9, ve 12. aylarda olacak şekilde Periotest cihazının üreticinin talimatlarına göre kullanılması ile yapılmıştır.
Bulgular: Gruplar arası zamana bağlı Periotest değerleri karşılaştırıldığında Hawley grubunun ilk ölçüm, 2.ay, 3. ay ve 6. ay mobilite düzeylerinin Essix grubuna göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Grup içi Periotest değerleri karşılaştırıldığında Hawley grubunda ilk ölçümdeki mobilite düzeyine göre 1. Haftada istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık görülmezken (p>0.05); ilk ölçüme göre 1. ay, 2. ay, 3. ay, 6. ay, 9. ay ve 12. ay ölçümlerinde görülen düşüşler istatistiksel olarak ileri düzeyde anlamlı bulunmuştur (p<0.01). Essix grubunda bulgular Hawley grubuna benzerdir (p<0.01). Her iki grupta da Periotest değerlerinin zaman bağlı olarak azaldığı gözlenmiştir.
Sonuç: Çalışmamızda ortodontik tedavi sonrası retansiyon döneminde yaygın olarak tercih edilen Hawley ve Essix apareylerinin tedavi ile indüklenen diş mobilitesi üzerinde benzer klinik yararlanımları olduğu gözlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mobilite, Ortodontik Tedavi, Retansiyon, Periotest

Aim: In orthodontic tooth movement, significant physiological alterations in the periodontal ligament and underlying alveolar bone are frequently observed states. Tooth mobility has been used as an important indicator in the assessment of biomechanical characteristics of the periodontium and the availability of periodontal support throughout orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of Hawley and Essix appliances used for orthodontic retention on tooth mobility over time and to evaluate their clinical efficacy.
Materials and Method: A total of 45 participants, 29 Hawley appliances used and 16 Essix appliance used, were included in this study. For each subject, the mobility of teeth on both arches was measured immediately (initial measurement) after orthodontic treatment and during retention (1st week, 1st, 2nd, 3,6th, 9th and 12th months) by use of Periotest.
Results: The initial measurement, 2nd, 3rd and 6th months mobility levels of the Hawley group were statistically significantly higher than the Essix group(p <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the initial measurement in Hawley group according to the mobility level in the first week(p> 0.05) whereas there was a statistically significant decrease in the measurements of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th months (p <0.01). The results were similar to Hawley group in Essix group (p <0.01). Periotest values decreased with time in both groups.
Conclusion: In our results suggest that Hawley and Essix appliances, which are widely preferred in the retention period after orthodontic treatment, have similar clinical benefits on remodeling of orthodontic-induced mobility.
Key Words: Mobility, Orthodontic Treatment, Retention, Periotest

Keywords

Mobilite, Ortodontik Tedavi, Retansiyon, Periotest

References

• 1. Jumanca D, Gǎluşcan A, Podariu A.C, Oancea R, Sava-Roşianu R, Popovici R. Assessing effectiveness of containment after fixed orthodontic treatment with periotest. Medicine in Evoluation 2011; XVII(3):463-468.
• 2. Marakoğlu İ,Ataoğlu T, Doruk EC. Ortodontik Tedavide Periodontal Dokulardaki Değişiklikler ve Periodontal Hastalıklarda Ortodontik Girişimler. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 1998; 102-106.
• 3. Tanaka E, Ueki K, Kikuzaki M, Yamada E, Takeuchi M, Dalla- Bona D, Tanne K. Longitudinal measurements of tooth mobility during orthodontic treatment using a periotest. Angle Orthod 2005; 75:101–105.
• 4. Konermann A, Al-Malat R, Skupin J, Keilig L, Dirk C, Karanis R, et al. In vivo determination of tooth mobility after fixed orthodontic appliance therapy with a novel intraoral measurement device. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:1283–1289.
• 5. Tanne K, Yoshida S, Kawata T, Sasaki A, Knox J, Jones ML. An evaluation of the biomechanical response of the tooth and periodontium to orthodontic forces in adolescent and adult subjects. Br J Orthod 1998;25:109–115
• 6. Tanne K, Inoue Y, Sakuda M. Biomechanical behavior of the periodontium before and after orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:123–128.
• 7. Degirmenci Z, Polat Ozsoy O. Sabit ortodontik tedavi sonrası retansiyon. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2009; 12(1): 83-90.
• 8. Joondeph DR. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby:2005.p. 1123-5
• 9. Blake M, Garvey MT. Rationale for retention following orthodontic treatment. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998 Oct;64(9):640-3.
• 10. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(6):730-7.
• 11. Kilic N, Oktay H, Ersoz M. Effects of force magnitude on relapse: an experimental study in rabbits. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 140:44–50.
• 12. Keilig, L., Goedecke, J., Bourauel, C. et al. Increased tooth mobility after fixed orthodontic appliance treatment can be selectively utilized for case refinement via positioner therapy - a pilot study. BMC Oral Health 20, 114 (2020).
• 13. Yoshida N, Koga Y, Kobayashi K, Yamada Y, Yoneda T. A new method for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of tooth displacement under the application of orthodontic forces using magnetic sensors. Med Eng Phys. 2000;22:293–300
• 14. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics.3rd ed. St Louis;CV Mosby:2000. p.597-614.
• 15. Doğan S, Işıksal E,Dinçer B, Erdinç AM. Evaluation of Long Term Results of Removable Retention Appliances. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2009; 30: 1-10
• 16. Watted N, Wieber M, Teuscher T, Schmitz N. Comparison of incisor mobility after insertion of canine to canine lingual retainers bonded to two or to six teeth: A clinical study. J Orofac Orthop. 2001 Sep;62(5):387-96
• 17. Schulte W, Lukas D. The Periotest method. Int Dent J 1992; 42:433–40.
• 18. Rowland H, Hichens L, Williams A, Hills D, Killingback N, Ewings P, Clark S, Ireland AJ, Sandy JR. The effectiveness of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(6):730-7.
• 19. Mackie I, Ghrebi S, Worthington H. Measurement of tooth mobility in children using the Periotest. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1996;12:120 –123.
• 20. Göllner M, Holst A, Berthold C, Schmitt J, Wichmann M, Holst S. Noncontact intraoral measurement of force-related tooth mobility. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14:551–7.
• 21. Elbrecht P. Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Lockerungsgrade der Zähne. Parodontium 1939;11:138–49.
• 22. Lukas D, Schulte W. Periotest-a dynamic procedure for the diagnosis of the human periodontium. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 1990; 11: 65-75.
• 23. Dogar G, Koçak Büyükdere A. The methods of dental implant stability measurement. 7tepe Klinik 2018; 14(1): 81-86.
• 24. Kaneko TM. Relationship between the stiffness of the dental implant-bone system and the duration of the implant-tapping rod contact. Med Eng Phys. 1994;16:310–315.
• 25. Çifter M, Gümrü Çelikel AD, Çekici A. Effects of vacuum-formed retainers on periodontal status and their retention efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Dec;152(6):830-835.
• 26. Dorow C, Krstin N, Sander FG. Experimental model of tooth mobility in the human "in vivo". Biomed Tech (Berl). 2002;47:20–5.