Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEross, Edina
dc.contributor.authorTurk, Tamer
dc.contributor.authorElekdag-Turk, Selma
dc.contributor.authorCakmak, Fethiye
dc.contributor.authorJones, Allan S.
dc.contributor.authorVegh, Andras
dc.contributor.authorDarendelilerh, M. Ali
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:46:27Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:46:27Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn0889-5406
dc.identifier.issn1097-6752
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.021
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/14303
dc.descriptionElekdag-Turk, Selma/0000-0002-2799-6501; Darendeliler, Mehmet Ali/0000-0002-8906-8153; PAPADOPOULOU, ALEXANDRA/0000-0001-5981-0479en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000355378100020en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 26038078en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aims of this study were to evaluate with microcomputed tomography the orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption in premolars caused by buccopalatal jiggling movement with light and heavy forces and to compare it with the resorption caused by equivalent but continuous buccal forces. Methods: The sample consisted of 60 maxillary first premolars collected from 30 patients (15 girls, 15 boys; ages, 13-18 years) who required orthodontic treatment with extractions. They were divided into 3 groups of 10 patients. Light (25 g) or heavy (225 g) buccal tipping orthodontic forces were randomly assigned on the maxillary right or left quadrant with either continuous buccal (positive controls) or buccopalatal jiggling forces for 12 weeks. At the end of the experimental period, the teeth were carefully extracted and processed for 3dimensional imaging and volumetric evaluations of resorption craters. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between positive control light (P = 0.0173) and heavy (P = 0.0173) continuous forces and jiggling forces for both force magnitudes. However, statistically significant differences were observed between heavy and light jiggling forces (P = 0.038), with heavy jiggling forces causing greater total root resorption than light jiggling forces. Conclusions: Light and heavy jiggling forces in the buccopalatal direction did not cause significantly different amounts of root resorption when compared with continuous forces of the same magnitude. On the other hand, light jiggling forces resulted in less root resorption than heavy jiggling forces.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.021en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titlePhysical properties of root cementum: Part 25. Extent of root resorption after the application of light and heavy buccopalatal jiggling forces for 12 weeks: A microcomputed tomography studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume147en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.startpage738en_US
dc.identifier.endpage746en_US
dc.relation.journalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedicsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record