Abstract

Controversy exists concerning the relative superiority of various orthodontic techniques because of the difficulties encountered in making comparative clinical studies of these techniques which are scientific and statistically meaningful. The purpose of this study was to clinically compare six different orthodontic techniques which are currently being taught, relative to a number of criteria, and to do it in a scientifically significant manner.

In order to eliminate as many of the irrelevant variables as possible, the patients were required to pass a relatively stringent screening to participate. Among other things, the patients had to have first molars in Class I relation and occlusion, and require the extraction of four first bicuspids. They were then segregated info six groups of seven members each in such a manner that the groups were statistically balanced relative to seven characteristics commonly used in orthodontic diagnosis.

The variable of different individual abilities of clinicians was balanced for all groups by having one member of each group treated by one of seven members in the orthodontic class. Measurements and records were meticulously and thoroughly made by the same individuals throughout the study and a high level of consistency was maintained.

To assure fidelity to the techniques being evaluated, one or more experts in each technique established treatment plans and mechanics for all patients in that group. This expert or one of his colleagues, personally directed treatments in the clinic for the patients of his technique.

The data obtained from the measurements, records and subjective observations of clinicians and patients were statistically analyzed by computer.

The results indicate the following comparisons: Ricketts and Plastic Force Module Techniques produce very similar rates of cuspid movement. Ricketts technique moves the molars forward far less than the Plastic Force Module technique (or any other), but it tips the cuspid crowns distally more than twice as much. The Tweed technique maintains excellent control of the cuspids with extremely little tipping but the cuspids move relatively slowly and the molars move forward to a considerable extent. A Light Edgewise Wire, Long Coil Spring, Straight Wire Appliance technique produced moderate movement of the cuspids distally and severe movement of the molars mesially. This type of movement may be useful although it could be very detrimental if employed when stability of the molar position is desired.

This same Light Wire, Long Coil Spring technique and the Begg technique were equally easiest and quickest for the clinician and most comfortable for the patient. Plastic Force Module technique was slightly harder for the clinician and moderately uncomfortable for the patient. Burstone, Ricketts, and Tweed techniques were relatively quite difficult and uncomfortable, but Tweed was less so than the other two.

LLU Discipline

Orthodontics

Department

Dentistry

School

Graduate School

First Advisor

Roland D. Walters

Second Advisor

John P. DeVincenzo

Third Advisor

Jack L. Tomlinson

Fourth Advisor

Elmer E. Kelln

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Degree Level

M.S.

Year Degree Awarded

1972

Date (Title Page)

5-1972

Language

English

Library of Congress/MESH Subject Headings

Orthodontics, Corrective

Type

Thesis

Page Count

vii; 45

Digital Format

PDF

Digital Publisher

Loma Linda University Libraries

Usage Rights

This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights.

Collection

Loma Linda University Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Collection Website

http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/

Repository

Loma Linda University. Del E. Webb Memorial Library. University Archives

Download

Share

COinS